VIOLIN Logo
VO Banner
Search: for Help
About
Introduction
Statistics
VIOLIN News
Your VIOLIN
Register or Login
Submission
Tutorial
Vaccine & Components
Vaxquery
Vaxgen
VBLAST
Protegen
VirmugenDB
DNAVaxDB
CanVaxKB
Vaxjo
Vaxvec
Vevax
Huvax
Vaccine Mechanisms
Vaximmutordb
Vaxism
Vaxar
Vaccine Literature
VO-SciMiner
Litesearch
Vaxmesh
Vaxlert
Vaccine Design
Vaxign
Community Efforts
Vaccine Ontology
ICoVax 2012
ICoVax 2013
Advisory Committee
Vaccine Society
Vaxperts
VaxPub
VaxCom
VaxLaw
VaxMedia
VaxMeet
VaxFund
VaxCareer
Data Exchange
V-Utilities
VIOLINML
Help & Documents
Publications
Documents
FAQs
Links
Acknowledgements
Disclaimer
Contact Us
UMMS Logo

Vaccine Comparison

ACAM1000 MVA MVA-BN NYVAC
Vaccine Information Vaccine Information Vaccine Information Vaccine Information
  • Vaccine Ontology ID: VO_0004089
  • Type: Replication competent virus
  • Preparation: ACAM1000 was purified from Dryvax by sequential plaque selection to isolate clone (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Virulence: By most measures, ACAM 1000 is less virulent than Dryvax, the existing human smallpox vaccine (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Description: Dryvax supplies could be stretched by dilution. As vaccine supplies would still be insufficient, a new vaccine derived from Dryvax that is suitable for modern manufacture in cell culture at a large scale must be developed and clinically tested. The new vaccine forms the basis for the United States government's strategic vaccine stockpile for biodefense, and other countries are taking a similar course of action (Weltzin et al., 2003).
    Clinical trials have been conducted using the NYCBH-derived ACAM1000 vaccinia virus-based vaccines. ACAM1000 was similar to Dryvax in its ability to induce immune responses and in reactogenicity in phase I trials (Parrino et al., 2006).
  • Vaccine Ontology ID: VO_0004092
  • Type: Replication-defective virus
  • Preparation: A vial of MVA passage 572 was plaque-purified, propagated in chick embryo fibroblasts, and purified by sedimentation through a sucrose cushion (Earl et al., 2004).
  • Virulence: (Earl et al., 2004; Meseda et al., 2005)
  • Description: Modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) has been studied most extensively out of the replication-defective vaccines. MVA has an excellent safety profile and could be used in groups in whom Dryvax is currently contraindicated. MVA was given to 120,000 people in Germany in the 1970s, followed by vaccination with live virus Elstree. MVA was safe but was not field-tested because smallpox was not present in Europe at that time. MVA has since been evaluated in animal models and in human studies. In phase I human clinical trials, MVA was found to be safe and immunogenic on its own and found to prime for greater immune responses and attenuate lesion formation if given in advance of Dryvax vaccination. MVA is also being evaluated in persons with contraindications to live virus vaccine such as atopic dermatitis and immunosuppression (Parrino et al., 2006).
  • Vaccine Ontology ID: VO_0004097
  • Type: Highly attenuated clone
  • Preparation: MVA-BN has been derived via additional passages in serum free chicken embryo fibroblast (CEF) cultures, and is replication incompetent in mammalian cell lines, avirulent even in immune compromised hosts, highly immunogenic in mammalian animal models, and may be administered both s.c. and i.m. The vaccine was produced by IDT under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) conditions and provided by Bavarian Nordic as a liquid frozen product stored at −80 °C. Doses of 2 × 106, 2 × 107, 2 × 108 TCID50/ml were formulated in 10 mM Tris, 140 mM NaCl, pH 7.4. The vaccine was thawed and 0.5 ml were administered to subjects to deliver a dose of 106, 107, 108 TCID50, respectively (Vollmar et al., 2006).
  • Virulence: (Vollmar et al., 2006)
  • Description: MVA-BN (IMVAMUNE) was developed from the Modified Vaccinia Ankara strain (MVA) that was used as a priming vaccine prior to administration of conventional smallpox vaccine in a two-step program and shown to be safe in more than 120,000 primary vaccinees in Germany and used as a veterinary vaccine to protect against several veterinary orthopoxvirus infections (Vollmar et al., 2006).
  • Vaccine Ontology ID: VO_0004093
  • Type: Replication defective virus
  • Preparation: NYVAC was derived from the Copenhagen strain and developed by selective deletion of 18 open reading frames (ORFs) (Parrino et al., 2006).
  • Virulence: (Belyakov et al., 2003; Edghill-Smith et al., 2003)
  • Description: Smallpox vaccination induced significantly larger skin lesions in immunocompromised macaques than in healthy macaques. Vaccination of immunocompromised macaques with the genetically-engineered, replication-deficient poxvirus NYVAC, before or after retrovirus infection, was safe and lessened the severity of Dryvax-induced skin lesions. Neutralizing antibodies to vaccinia were induced by NYVAC, even in macaques with severe CD4+ T cell depletion, and their titers inversely correlated with the time to complete resolution of the skin lesions. Together, these results provide the proof of concept, in macaque models that mirror human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 infection, that a prime-boost approach with a highly attenuated poxvirus followed by Dryvax increases the safety of smallpox vaccination, and they highlight the importance of neutralizing antibodies in protection against virulent poxvirus (Edghill-Smith et al., 2003).
Host Response Host Response Host Response Host Response

Human Response

  • Host Strain: Healthy adults 18-29 yrs.
  • Vaccination Protocol: ACAM1000 for clinical testing was produced at pilot lot scale (750,000 doses) according to current Good Manufacturing Practices. A randomized, double-blind clinical study was carried out under an Investigational New Drug application approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of ACAM1000 in 60 healthy adults, without prior smallpox vaccination. On day 0, 30 eligible subjects received inoculation of ACAM1000 by 15 strokes of a bifurcated needle. The vaccine formulation contained 108 PFU/ml. Subjects took daily oral temperature, completed a symptom diary and returned to the clinic on days 3, 7, 10, 15, 30 and 45 and after 6 months for evaluation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing a major cutaneous reaction ('take') on day 7 and/or day 10. The primary statistical method was a test of noninferiority of ACAM1000 to Dryvax intended to rule out a 20% difference in take rates. Based on a one-tailed test of noninferiority, with a significance level of 0.05 and power of 80%, and assuming that the common rate of major cutaneous reaction is 90%, 30 subjects per arm of the trial would be required to rule out an ACAM1000 rate of response of 70% or less. Secondary endpoints were neutralizing antibody and T cell responses on days 0 and 45. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were evaluated by CTL, IFN-gamma ELISPOT and lymphoproliferation assays (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Persistence: Subjects took daily oral temperature, completed a symptom diary and returned to the clinic on days 3, 7, 10, 15, 30 and 45 and after 6 months for evaluation. It is expected to confer lifelong immunity (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Side Effects: No serious adverse events were reported, and no subject was withdrawn from the study because of an adverse event. All 60 subjects experienced at least one adverse event related to the local cutaneous infection with vaccinia virus. Minimal changes in body temperature were noted. Two subjects experienced atypical healing at the vaccination site. No cardiac adverse events occurred, despite recent reports of myopericarditis. The trial was not powered sufficiently to detect the rare serious adverse events associated with smallpox vaccines (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Efficacy: The rate of successful vaccination was 100% (30 of 30 subjects) for ACAM1000 and 97% (29 of 30 subjects) for Dryvax (Table 1). By the prescribed statistical test, ACAM1000 was not inferior in immunogenicity to Dryvax (P < 0.001) (Weltzin et al., 2003).

    T-cell memory to smallpox declines slowly over time, with a half-life of 8–15 years, whereas serum antibody responses (and B-cell memory) to smallpox are maintained essentially for life with little or no observable decline. The protection afforded by smallpox vaccination shows that >90% of vaccinees are protected against lethal smallpox (normally 30% mortality in unvaccinated individuals) for at least 60 years post-vaccination (Slifka, 2004).
  • Description: Dryvax supplies could be stretched by dilution. As vaccine supplies would still be insufficient, a new vaccine derived from Dryvax that is suitable for modern manufacture in cell culture at a large scale must be developed and clinically tested. Safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of ACAM1000 was evaluated based upon comparable results with Dryvax (Weltzin et al., 2003).

Human Response

  • Host Strain: Adult males
  • Vaccination Protocol: Healthy male subjects aged 20–55 years were eligible for recruitment. The study design was divided into two parts: Part I subjects (n = 68) had no prior history of smallpox vaccination, while Part II (n = 18) subjects had a prior history of smallpox vaccination, documented by a vaccination certificate or a typical vaccination scar. Part I subjects were randomly assigned to receive a dose of either 106 (Group 1, n = 18), 107 (Group 2, n = 16), 108 (Group 3, n = 16) TCID50 MVA-BN in a double-blind manner, or 108 TCID50 (Group 4, n = 18) open-label, on day 0 and d28. Part II participants received a single dose of 108 TCID50 (Group 5, n = 18), open-label, to evaluate a boost response in previously vaccinated subjects. Study-specific assessments were conducted at screening and on d 0, 7, 28, 35, 42, and 126 (Vollmar et al., 2006).
  • Persistence: T-cell immunity can persist for up to 50 years after immunization (Vollmar et al., 2006).
  • Side Effects: 15 of the 64 general adverse events were assessed as possibly related to the study vaccine. 2 of these each occurred in Groups 1, 3, and 4, respectively, and 9 (28%) in the pre-immunized subjects. Only 1 serious adverse event was reported during the study: a subject in Group 4 was hospitalized due to an infected epidermal cyst on the face, 12 days after the second injection; however, this event was judged to be unrelated to the study vaccine, and the subject recovered without sequelae (Vollmar et al., 2006).
  • Efficacy: The immune responses achieved after administration of MVA-BN were highly dose-dependent. Total IgG seropositivity rates, as determined by the ELISA, reached a maximum of 81% and 88% following a single vaccination using the highest dose (108 TCID50) via the s.c. or i.m. routes, respectively. They reached 100% following the second vaccination. On the other hand, the pre-immunized subjects attained 100% seropositivity after a single vaccination with MVA-BN although only 4 of these subjects had detectable antibody titers prior to inclusion, implying a pre-existing boostable immunity more than 20 years post-vaccination (Vollmar et al., 2006).
  • Description: The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate safety and tolerability of MVA-BN at different doses administered to healthy subjects with or without a history of smallpox vaccination. Immunogenicity was assessed in all subjects as a secondary endpoint and was also used to evaluate dose-related responses and optimal route of application (Vollmar et al., 2006).

Mouse Response

  • Host Strain: BALB/c
  • Vaccination Protocol: The following lethal intranasal vaccinia (strain WR) challenge model was used to evaluate protective immunization by vaccinia clones in mice. Mice were immunized by scarification with graded doses of ACAM1000 and then challenged by intranasal inoculation with 100 times the median lethal dose (LD50) of vaccinia-WR (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Persistence: In one mouse model, all sham-immunized animals died (average survival time [AST] = 5.2 d), whereas immunized mice all survived (3-5 weeks). Another mouse model involving IN challenge showed protection with minimal transient weight loss, while sham-immunized mice had severre weight loss and all died (AST = 12.6 d) (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Side Effects: transient weight loss (Weltzin et al., 2003)
  • Efficacy: All mice immunized with 7 or 8 log10 PFU/ml survived. At lower vaccine doses, survival was reduced in a dose-dependent manner. Body weight decreased 1−2 d after challenge but increased subsequently in mice receiving the highest doses of vaccine viruses. Protection by all clones was similar to that of Dryvax. The dose that protected 50% of mice from death (PD50) was 5.5 log10 PFU/ml for Dryvax (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Description: Vaccine candidates were purified from Dryvax either by sequential plaque selection to isolate clones or by passage at low multiplicity of infection (MOI) to isolate a polyclonal virus. The starting material was a pool of 30 vials (3,000 doses) of Dryvax from three different production lots. Six clones were isolated by three sequential rounds of plaque purification in MRC-5 cells (human lung fibroblast cell line). The clones were then amplified in fluid cultures to produce vaccine candidates. The polyclonal strain was produced by passage three times in MRC-5 cells at MOI 0.001 plaque-forming units (PFU)/cell. HindIII restriction endonuclease analysis was carried out on viral DNA isolated from the seven vaccine candidates and Dryvax. All DNA samples yielded digestion products corresponding to those of Dryvax, indicating that there were no major genetic rearrangements. Minor variations in the molecular weights of individual bands, such as band K of clone 3 and possibly the higher-molecular-weight bands of clone 2, were observed. Based on its attenuated phenotype in mice and similarity to Dryvax in other characteristics, clone 2 was selected as the best candidate for further development and was renamed ACAM1000 (Weltzin et al., 2003).

Mouse Response

  • Host Strain: BALB/cByJ
  • Vaccination Protocol: To compare the effectiveness of various routes of MVA immunization, male BALB/cByJ mice (obtained from the Jackson Laboratory, Bar Arbor, ME) were immunized through 3 different routes at doses from 106 to 108 pfu, and sera were collected every 3 weeks for 15 weeks for evaluation of Dryvax-specific antibody by ELISA using inactivated virus (Meseda et al., 2005).
  • Persistence: The antibody response to vaccination was observed in mice over a relatively long period of time (12–15 weeks) following the initial dose of vaccine. By each measurement, the elicited immune response was stable over this time frame for both Dryvax and MVA. Further, when animals received a second dose of MVA, the antibody response was elevated compared to a single immunization, and was stable for the remainder of the observation period (6 to 9 weeks) (Meseda et al., 2005).
  • Side Effects: A safer smallpox vaccine could benefit the millions of people that are advised not to take the current one because they or their contacts have increased susceptibility to severe vaccine side effects. Because the correlates of smallpox protection are unknown, findings of similar humoral and cellular immune responses to MVA and Dryvax in NHPs and substantial protection against a severe monkeypox virus challenge are important steps in the evaluation of MVA as a replacement vaccine for those with increased risk of severe side effects from the standard live vaccine, or as a pre-vaccine. As a result of extreme attenuation, MVA causes no adverse effects even when high doses are injected into immunedeficient NHPs. No adverse local or systemic effects were noted after vaccination with MVA. As expected, pustular skin lesions did develop after Dryvax (Earl et al., 2004).
    Significant adverse events are associated with vaccination with the currently licensed smallpox vaccine. Candidate new-generation smallpox vaccines, such as MVA, produce very few adverse events in experimental animals and in limited human clinical trials conducted near the end of the smallpox eradication campaign. MVA was administered to more than 120,000 individuals in the latter stages of the smallpox eradication campaign without significant adverse events, although the thoroughness of safety data monitoring at that time is unclear. In addition to a vaccination strategy that employs multiple immunizations of MVA, alternative smallpox vaccination strategies may include an initial vaccination with non-replicating virus vaccine followed by a second immunization with a traditional replicating virus vaccine in order to reduce the possibility of vaccine-associate adverse events due to replicating vaccinia virus. Such a scheme of vaccination may be considered as a means of reducing the rate of adverse events associated with traditional smallpox vaccination, provided that vaccine efficacy is not compromised (Meseda et al., 2005).
  • Efficacy: Mice immunized intradermally (i.d.) with either 108 pfu of MVA, or a prime-boost combination of 108 pfu of MVA followed by either 106 pfu of Dryvax or 108 pfu of MVA survived an intranasal (i.n.) challenge with 25 LD50s of vaccinia virus WR. Furthermore, vaccination with a single dose of 108 pfu of MVA resulted in a minimal weight loss (<10%), as did a vaccination combination of 108 pfu of MVA followed by 106 pfu of Dryvax. When mice that were immunized with a lower dose of 106 pfu of MVA were challenged with i.n. vaccinia virus WR, 4/5 survived a challenge with 10 LD50s at either 6 weeks or 12 weeks post-vaccination. When mice received a single immunization of 106 pfu of MVA and were challenged with 25 LD50s, 4/5 survived challenge at 6 weeks post-vaccination and 3/5 survived challenge at 12 weeks post-vaccination. In contrast, all animals receiving 106 MVA and boosted 6 weeks later with either 106 pfu of MVA or 106 pfu of Dryvax survived. These results indicate that combinations of MVA are as effective as Dryvax in eliciting immune responses and inducing protective immunity in a mouse model (Meseda et al., 2005).
  • Description: The aim of the present study was to compare the immunogenicity and protective ability of MVA (a leading candidate new-generation smallpox vaccine) to the licensed smallpox vaccine Dryvax in a mouse model of vaccination. MVA is a replication-defective vaccinia virus derived from the Ankara strain by more than 500 passages through primary chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEF). This virus grows to high titer in CEF cells but replicates poorly, if at all, in human cells (Meseda et al., 2005).

Mouse Response

  • Host Strain: BALB/c, B cell-deficient, and CD1 KO–/– mice
  • Vaccination Protocol: Female BALB/c mice (6–10 weeks old, purchased from Frederick Cancer Research Facility, Frederick, MD), B cell-deficient (Taconic Farms), and CD1 KO-/- (CD1KO, from M. Grusby) mice were innoculated with NYVAC at doses from 103 to 107 pfu. For comparison, and as a positive control, immunization with Wyeth human vaccine strain of vaccinia virus was given by tail scratch (corresponding to skin scratch used for human vaccination). One month after immunization, mice were challenged with 106 pfu of WR by intranasal (i.n.) inoculation (Belyakov et al., 2003).
  • Persistence: (Belyakov et al., 2003)
  • Side Effects: None were mentioned. Replication-defective strains might be valuable as a preliminary immunization to reduce the risk of serious adverse ffects of conventional smallpox vaccination (Belyakov et al., 2003).
  • Efficacy: Protection at most doses of NYVAC given i.m. was roughly comparable to that produced by the corresponding doses of MVA given i.m., and no statistically significant difference was detected. It was found that i.m. injection with MVA induced protection of immunized animals in a dose-dependent manner. A dose of 107 pfu of MVA given i.m. induced complete protection against challenge with WR (Belyakov et al., 2003).
  • Description: At sufficient doses, the protection provided by modified NYVAC replication-deficient vaccinia viruses, safe in immunocompromised animals, was equivalent to that of the licensed Wyeth vaccine strain against a pathogenic vaccinia virus i.n. challenge of mice. A similar variety and pattern of immune responses were involved in protection induced by modified vaccinia Ankara and Wyeth viruses. For both, antibody was essential to protect against disease, whereas neither effector CD4+ nor CD8+ T cells were necessary or sufficient. However, in the absence of antibody, T cells were necessary and sufficient for survival and recovery. Also, T cells played a greater role in control of sublethal infection in unimmunized animals. These properties, shared with the existing smallpox vaccine, provide a basis for further evaluation of these replication-deficient vaccinia viruses as safer vaccines against smallpox or against complications from vaccinia virus (Belyakov et al., 2003).

Monkey Response

  • Host Strain: Young adult rhesus monkeys.
  • Vaccination Protocol: Monkeys (six per group) were vaccinated by scarification using a bifurcated needle. All 18 monkeys developed typical primary cutaneous reactions. Neutralizing antibodies against both variola and vaccinia viruses were measured 30 d after vaccination (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Persistence: Neutralizing antibodies against both variola and vaccinia viruses were present at >30 d post-vaccination (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Side Effects: Dryvax can causes severe neurobiological illness and mortality via nonpurulent meningitis. ACAM 1000 can lead to mild edema and small areas of lymphoid infiltration (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Efficacy: Antibodies to variola at titers 1:40 were present in two of six monkeys inoculated with ACAM1000. Neutralizing antibodies to vaccinia virus appeared in five of six inoculated with ACAM1000 (titers, 1:10−40) (Weltzin et al., 2003).
  • Description: Vaccine candidates were purified from Dryvax either by sequential plaque selection to isolate clones or by passage at low multiplicity of infection (MOI) to isolate a polyclonal virus. The starting material was a pool of 30 vials (3,000 doses) of Dryvax from three different production lots. Six clones were isolated by three sequential rounds of plaque purification in MRC-5 cells. The clones were then amplified in fluid cultures to produce vaccine candidates at MRC-5 passage. The polyclonal strain was produced by passage three times in MRC-5 cells at MOI 0.001 plaque-forming units (PFU)/cell. HindIII restriction endonuclease analysis was carried out on viral DNA isolated from the seven vaccine candidates and Dryvax. All DNA samples yielded digestion products corresponding to those of Dryvax, indicating that there were no major genetic rearrangements. Minor variations in the molecular weights of individual bands, such as band K of clone 3 and possibly the higher-molecular-weight bands of clone 2, were observed. Based on its attenuated phenotype in mice and similarity to Dryvax in other characteristics, clone 2 was selected as the best candidate for further development and was renamed ACAM1000. This model was performed to confirm the immunogenicity of ACAM1000 that was observed in mice (Weltzin et al., 2003).

Monkey Response

  • Host Strain: Cynomolgous macaque (Macaca fascicularis)
  • Vaccination Protocol: Monkeys were inoculated with 108 plaque-forming units (PFU). 24 monkeys were divided into 4 groups: group 1 received an inoculation with 108 PFU of MVA at t = 0 and a second 2 months later; group 2 received one injection with 108 PFU of MVA followed 2 months later by a standard percutaneous inoculation with Dryvax; group 3 received nothing at t = 0 and 1 Dryvax inoculation 2 months later; group 4 served as the unimmunized control (Earl et al., 2004).
  • Persistence: The response to the first MVA inoculation was detected at 1 week, peaked at 2-4 weeks, and was boosted 1 week after the second MVA dose (Earl et al., 2004).
  • Side Effects: MVA caused no adverse effects, even when high doses were injected into immune-deficient NHPs (Earl et al., 2004).
  • Efficacy: All immunized animals remained clinically well (Earl et al., 2004).
  • Description: As vaccines can no longer be tested for their ability to prevent smallpox, licensing will necessarily include comparative immunogenicity and protection studies in non-human primates (NHPs). Here, a highly attenuated MVA is compared with the licensed Dryvax vaccine in an NHP model (Earl et al., 2004).

Monkey Response

  • Host Strain: cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis)
  • Vaccination Protocol: Four groups of six captive-bred sub-adult healthy monkeys each were vaccinated: the first group was vaccinated twice with a high dose of 108 TCID50 MVA-BN at an interval of 4 weeks, the second group was vaccinated with a low dose of 2 x 106 TCID50 MVA-BN followed 10 days later by a s.c. vaccination with Elstree-RIVM, the third group was vaccinated with one s.c. standard dose of Elstree-RIVM, and the fourth group was vaccinated s.c. with one standard dose of Elstree-BN. Group V was sham vaccinated. 15 weeks after the last vaccination, all of the animals were challenged intratracheal (i.t.) with either 106 PFU (3 animals per group) or 107 PFU (3 animals per group) of MPXV, which were chosen as sub-lethal and lethal challenges, respectively (Stittelaar et al., 2005).
  • Persistence: (Stittelaar et al., 2005)
  • Side Effects: Elevated body temperatures were observed (Stittelaar et al., 2005).
  • Efficacy: All vaccinated animals that were challenged showed an episode of elevated body temperature (>1°C; ~2.65%) that occurred between days 5 and 8 post-challenge which returned to normal by d 12. Only one vaccinated animal developed pocks upon MPXV challenge, while all others showed no clinical signs of the disease apart from an elevated body temperature. This animal, which was vaccinated with MVA-BN (group I), initially developed pocks (>70) on d 11 after the challenge with MPXV (Stittelaar et al., 2005).
  • Description: The present study investigated different combinations of candidate and traditional vaccines, followed by MPXV challenge i.t. The MVA strain (MVA-BN, or IMVAMUNE) is currently being tested in >300 human subjects in on-going phase I and II clinical studies, including individuals for whom vaccination with traditional smallpox vaccines is traditionally contraindicated. For the present study, the immune response and efficacy of MVA-BN vaccination were compared to those of a primary vaccination with MVA-BN followed by vaccination with a first-generation smallpox vaccine produced on calf skins (Elstree-RIVM). For this purpose, a low dose of MVA was chosen to prime the immune system, thus reducing the side effects of vaccination with a traditional vaccine shortly thereafter without changing the take rate of the traditional vaccine. In addition, vaccination protocols with Elstree-RIVM alone and vaccination with a second-generation vaccine (Elstree-BN) were evaluated. Elstree-BN is based on the same vaccinia virus strain as Elstree-RIVM, but the former was passaged and produced on chicken embryo fibroblasts to further attenuate the virus and to make a better defined vaccine preparation that does not depend on the use of calves (Stittelaar et al., 2005).

Monkey Response

  • Host Strain: Indian rhesus macaques
  • Vaccination Protocol: Twenty-five monkeys were enrolled: 6 of the macaques were immunocompetent (groups 1 and 2), and macaques in group 1 were vaccinia naive. Macaques in group 2 had been exposed previously to the attenuated nef- SIVmac239 strain. They were immunized with a single inoculation of NYVAC 1 month before Dryvax vaccination. Group 3 included 7 macaques, 3 that had been infected with the chimeric SHIV 89.6 PD strain for 8 months, 3 that had been infected with the SIVmac251 strain for 12 months, and 1 that had been infected with the nef- SIVmac239 strain for 32 months. Four macaques (group 5) that, at first, had been infected with the same SIVmac251 strain and that subsequently were vaccinated with 3 inoculations of NYVAC, at weeks 10, 19, and 23 after infection (for macaques 480, 644, and H684) or at weeks 42, 48, and 54 after infection (for macaque 3143), were used. The overall time of SIVmac251 infection was 41 months for macaques 480 and 644 and 25 months for macaques H684 and 3143. Four macaques had been infected with SHIV 89.6 PD for 12 months. They were vaccinated with 3 inoculations of NYVAC (108 pfu) 6 weeks apart and were challenged with Dryvax 6 months after the final NYVAC immunization. All 25 macaques were vaccinated with Dryvax at the same dose at the times indicated. In brief, the bifurcated needle was immersed in the vaccine suspension and was used to poke the skin 15 consecutive times, in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines. The lesions that developed after smallpox vaccination were photographed every 2 days and were imaged by manually defining the topographic contours of the affected skin (Edghill-Smith et al., 2003).
  • Persistence: The immunocompromised macaques were vaccinated with NYVAC at 6 months to a maximum of 36 months before Dryvax challenge, suggesting that this vaccine is able to induce lasting immune responses even as CD4+ helper T cells are progressively depleted. However, the lag between NYVAC and Dryvax vaccinations appears to be important (Edghill-Smith et al., 2003).
  • Side Effects: The prime-boost approach with a highly attenuated poxvirus followed by Dryvax increases the safety of smallpox vaccination (Edghill-Smith et al., 2003).
  • Efficacy: The prime-boost approach with a highly attenuated poxvirus followed by Dryvax increases the safety of smallpox vaccination, and highlights the importance of neutralizing antibodies in protection against virulent poxvirus (Edghill-Smith et al., 2003).
  • Description: The replication competence of live vaccines, such as the only currently available smallpox vaccine, Dryvax, may pose safety concerns when injected in individuals with congenital, acquired, or iatrogenic immunodeficiency. Because the number of patients with immunodeficiency has increased worldwide as a result of the HIV-1 epidemic, the increase in the number of organ transplants, and aggressive chemotherapy in patients with cancer, the risks associated with Dryvax vaccination may affect a larger portion of the population than before. It has been hypothesized that immunization of immunocompromised individuals, with highly attenuated poxviruses, may ameliorate the clinical outcome of Dryvax vaccination. In macaques with modest to severe depletion of CD4+ T cells, it was tested whether immunization with NYVAC before or after infection with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) or simian/human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) would increase the safety of Dryvax vaccination. NYVAC was shown to be safer in severely immunocompromised macaques and that NYVAC priming resulted in a faster resolution of Dryvax-induced lesions in both healthy and immunocompromised macaques (Edghill-Smith et al., 2003).
References References References References
Parrino et al., 2006: Parrino J, Graham BS. Smallpox vaccines: Past, present, and future. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2006 Dec; 118(6); 1320-6. [PubMed: 17157663 ].
Slifka, 2004: Slifka MK. Immunological memory to viral infection. Current opinion in immunology. 2004 Aug; 16(4); 443-50. [PubMed: 15245737].
Weltzin et al., 2003: Weltzin R, Liu J, Pugachev KV, Myers GA, Coughlin B, Blum PS, Nichols R, Johnson C, Cruz J, Kennedy JS, Ennis FA, Monath TP. Clonal vaccinia virus grown in cell culture as a new smallpox vaccine. Nature medicine. 2003 Sep; 9(9); 1125-30. [PubMed: 12925845 ].
Earl et al., 2004: Earl PL, Americo JL, Wyatt LS, Eller LA, Whitbeck JC, Cohen GH, Eisenberg RJ, Hartmann CJ, Jackson DL, Kulesh DA, Martinez MJ, Miller DM, Mucker EM, Shamblin JD, Zwiers SH, Huggins JW, Jahrling PB, Moss B. Immunogenicity of a highly attenuated MVA smallpox vaccine and protection against monkeypox. Nature. 2004 Mar 11; 428(6979); 182-5. [PubMed: 15014500].
Meseda et al., 2005: Meseda CA, Garcia AD, Kumar A, Mayer AE, Manischewitz J, King LR, Golding H, Merchlinsky M, Weir JP. Enhanced immunogenicity and protective effect conferred by vaccination with combinations of modified vaccinia virus Ankara and licensed smallpox vaccine Dryvax in a mouse model. Virology. 2005 Sep 1; 339(2); 164-75. [PubMed: 15993917 ].
Parrino et al., 2006: Parrino J, Graham BS. Smallpox vaccines: Past, present, and future. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2006 Dec; 118(6); 1320-6. [PubMed: 17157663 ].
Stittelaar et al., 2005: Stittelaar KJ, van Amerongen G, Kondova I, Kuiken T, van Lavieren RF, Pistoor FH, Niesters HG, van Doornum G, van der Zeijst BA, Mateo L, Chaplin PJ, Osterhaus AD. Modified vaccinia virus Ankara protects macaques against respiratory challenge with monkeypox virus. Journal of virology. 2005 Jun; 79(12); 7845-51. [PubMed: 15919938 ].
Vollmar et al., 2006: Vollmar J, Arndtz N, Eckl KM, Thomsen T, Petzold B, Mateo L, Schlereth B, Handley A, King L, Hulsemann V, Tzatzaris M, Merkl K, Wulff N, Chaplin P. Safety and immunogenicity of IMVAMUNE, a promising candidate as a third generation smallpox vaccine. Vaccine. 2006 Mar 15; 24(12); 2065-70. [PubMed: 16337719].
Belyakov et al., 2003: Belyakov IM, Earl P, Dzutsev A, Kuznetsov VA, Lemon M, Wyatt LS, Snyder JT, Ahlers JD, Franchini G, Moss B, Berzofsky JA. Shared modes of protection against poxvirus infection by attenuated and conventional smallpox vaccine viruses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2003 Aug 5; 100(16); 9458-63. [PubMed: 12869693 ].
Edghill-Smith et al., 2003: Edghill-Smith Y, Venzon D. Modeling a safer smallpox vaccination regimen, for human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients, in immunocompromised macaques. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2003 Oct 15; 188(8); 1181-91. [PubMed: 14551889 ].
Parrino et al., 2006: Parrino J, Graham BS. Smallpox vaccines: Past, present, and future. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2006 Dec; 118(6); 1320-6. [PubMed: 17157663 ].