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 Detail

Q-VAX
Vaccine Information
  • Vaccine Name: Q-VAX
  • Target Pathogen: Coxiella burnetii
  • Target Disease: Q fever
  • Tradename: Q-VAX
  • Vaccine Ontology ID: VO_0004129
  • Type: Inactivated or "killed" vaccine
  • Preparation: The formalin-inactivated vaccine is prepared from phase I Henzerling strain of Corxiella burnetii grown in the yolk sacs of embryonated eggs (Ackland et al., 1994).
  • Description: Q-VAX(R) is a formalin-inactivated phase I Corxiella burnetii. This vaccine is produced and licensed in Australia. It is currently the most effective vaccine in preventing Q fever (Ackland et al., 1994).
Host Response

Monkey Response

  • Host Strain: Adult cynomolgus monkeys
  • Vaccination Protocol: Groups of 10 monkeys (2.0 to 6.0 kg in weight) were immunized with 30 μg of Q-Vax, or 100 μg of CMR, or placebo subcutaneously. Two groups were immunized with 30 μg of CMR subcutaneously. The group initially given 30 μg of CMR was given a booster of another 30 μg of CMR after twenty-eight days (Waag et al., 2002).
  • Immune Response: A single 30 μg dose of Q-Vax and a single 30 μg dose of CMR resulted in similar antibody responses. Anti-phases I and II antibody responses rose at equal magnitude and antibody titers leveled off 2 weeks after challenge for the vaccinated monkeys (for both Q-Vax and CMR). In contrast, control monkeys had a higher anti-phase II response than anti-phase I response. Within three weeks, monkeys in control group had anti-phase II response that was greater than that in the vaccinated monkeys (Waag et al., 2002).
  • Side Effects: Monkeys challenged six months after vaccination showed signs of illness. However, the illnesses were less severe and/or of shorter duration for the both Q-Vax and CMR vaccinated monkeys than for the control monkeys. A majority of the control monkeys had increases in interstitial and bronchial opacity (as opposed to only a minority of vaccinated monkeys showing those changes). A drop in hemaglobin and hematocrit was observed in all groups. All monkeys, besides groups vaccinated with single dose 100 μg CMR or two 30 μg doses of CMR, were bacteremic, which correlated with fever (Waag et al., 2002).
  • Challenge Protocol: After six months of initial immunization, the monkeys were challenged with approximately 105 virulent phase I Henzerling strian C. burnetii administered using aerosol (Waag et al., 2002).
  • Efficacy: The study showed that CMR and Q-Vax were equally efficacious and immunogenic in monkeys challenged by aerosol (Waag et al., 2002).
  • Description: This study investigated the vaccine efficacy of CMR and Q-Vax in monkeys challenged by aerosol (Waag et al., 2002). See Host Response (Host Name: Monkey) under Chloroform-methanol residue (CMR) for more descriptive detail on results of the groups vaccinated with CMR.

Mouse Response

  • Host Strain: A/J
  • Vaccination Protocol: Groups of ten six-week-old A/J strain female mice were immunized with 0.5 ml of 0.01, 0.1, or 1.0 μg of Q-Vax. Mice in control groups were given USP saline (Waag et al., 1997).
  • Immune Response: None reported
  • Side Effects: None reported
  • Challenge Protocol: Six weeks from vaccination, the mice were challenged with10-fold 50% infection dose of phase I Henzerling strain C. burnetii administered in a small particle aerosol (Waag et al., 1997).
  • Efficacy: Mice vaccinated with 0.01 or 0.1 μg of Q-Vax were not protected. However, the 1.0 μg dose of Q-Vax were effective in protecting the mice from infection (Waag et al., 1997).

Guinea pig Response

  • Host Strain: Hartley guinea pigs
  • Vaccination Protocol: Groups of seven 250-300 g Hartley guinea pigs were vaccinated subcutaneously with 0.5 ml of 0.003, 0.03, 0.3, 3, or 30 μg of Q-Vax. Guinea pigs in control groups were given USP saline (Waag et al., 1997).
  • Immune Response: None reported
  • Side Effects: None reported
  • Challenge Protocol: Six weeks from vaccination, the guinea pigs were challenged with10-fold 50% infection dose of phase I Henzerling strain C. burnetii administered in a small particle aerosol (Waag et al., 1997).
  • Efficacy: 0.003 and 0.03 μg dose did not effectively protect the pigs from infection. Guinea pigs vaccinated with 0.3, 3.0, or 30.0 μg Q-Vax were significantly protected compared to the groups injected with USP saline (Waag et al., 1997).

Human Response

  • Efficacy: Among the 2555 employees who were vaccinated, only two cases of Q fever were found. However, 55 cases were found among the 1365 unvaccinated employees. The two vaccinated employees had Q fever only within days of vaccination (before immunity was developed). Therefore, the protective efficacy of Q-Vax was 100% (Ackland et al., 1994).
  • Description: A survey of all vaccinated and unvaccinated employees who had Q fever at three abattoirs in Australia from 1985 to 1990 were studied (Ackland et al., 1994).
References
Ackland et al., 1994: Ackland JR, Worswick DA, Marmion BP. Vaccine prophylaxis of Q fever. A follow-up study of the efficacy of Q-Vax (CSL) 1985-1990. The Medical journal of Australia. 1994; 160(11); 704-708. [PubMed: 8202006 ].
Waag et al., 1997: Waag DM, England MJ, Pitt ML. Comparative efficacy of a Coxiella burnetii chloroform:methanol residue (CMR) vaccine and a licensed cellular vaccine (Q-Vax) in rodents challenged by aerosol. Vaccine. 1997; 15(16); 1779-1783. [PubMed: 9364683 ].
Waag et al., 2002: Waag DM, England MJ, Tammariello RF, Byrne WR, Gibbs P, Banfield CM, Pitt ML. Comparative efficacy and immunogenicity of Q fever chloroform:methanol residue (CMR) and phase I cellular (Q-Vax) vaccines in cynomolgus monkeys challenged by aerosol. Vaccine. 2002; 20(19-20); 2623-2634. [PubMed: 12057622 ].