Silja Bühler

Therapeutic vaccination with MVA-HIV-1 nef elicits Nef-specific T-helper cell responses in chronically HIV-1 infected individuals.

Vaccination is currently considered as an additional therapeutic approach to stimulate HIV-specific immune response in subjects that could not naturally control HIV. Ten chronically HIV infected individuals have been vaccinated with a modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA)-HIV-1(LAI)-nef vector in order to assess safety and immunogenicity. No significant adverse effects were observed during the course of vaccination indicating for the first time that the highly attenuated vaccinia-virus vector MVA is safe in HIV-1 infected individuals. We observed a CD4 T-cell response to Nef in the majority of vaccinated chronically HIV infected individuals. In two subjects CD4 T-cell response was directed to previously unidentified Nef epitopes. The strong Nef-specific CD4 T-cell response elicited by MVA-nef vaccination provides a rationale for immunotherapeutic interventions in HIV infected individuals with suppressed CD4 T-cell responses. Moreover, the CD4 T-cell response elicited was comparable with that usually detected in long-term non-progressor (LTNP) suggesting an improvement in the immunological status of the vaccinated subjects. Furthermore, the new putative CD4 epitopes described here hold promise as important tools for epitope-based vaccination.

Short‐Term Immunogenicity and Safety of an Accelerated Pre‐Exposure Prophylaxis Regimen With Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine in Combination With a Rabies Vaccine: A Phase III, Multicenter, Observer‐Blind Study

BACKGROUND The current Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccination regimen requires two doses and 4 weeks to complete, which may not always be feasible for travelers on short notice. One of the primary endpoints of this phase III study was to demonstrate noninferiority of immune responses to a JE vaccine following an accelerated 1-week JE vaccination regimen administered concomitantly with a rabies vaccine as compared to a standard 4-week JE regimen alone. In addition, the immunogenicity of concomitant administration of JE and rabies vaccines following standard regimens was evaluated, as well as the tolerability and safety profile of each regimen under study. METHODS Healthy adults aged 18 to ≤65 years were randomized to regimens with an accelerated or standard schedule: JE+rabies-standard (n = 167), JE+rabies-accelerated (n = 217) or JE-standard (n = 56). Immunogenicity against JE antigen was assessed by a 50% plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50 ) titer of ≥1 : 10, measured 28 days after last active vaccine (LAV) administration. Solicited reactions were collected 7 days after each vaccination; spontaneously reported adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were monitored up to day 57. This paper reports results until day 57. RESULTS Noninferiority of immune responses was established for JE+rabies-accelerated compared to the JE-standard regimen 28 days after LAV administration. Overall, 99% and 100% of subjects in the JE+rabies-accelerated and JE-standard groups, respectively, achieved PRNT50 titers of ≥1 : 10 at 28 days after LAV administration. No impact of concomitant rabies vaccination was observed either on immune responses or on the safety profile of the JE vaccine. CONCLUSIONS This was the first randomized, controlled trial that demonstrated the strong short-term immunogenicity of a new, accelerated, 1-week JE-regimen, which was noninferior to that of the standard regimen, with a satisfactory tolerability and safety profile and no impact of concomitant rabies vaccination. This accelerated regimen, if licensed, could potentially be a valid alternative for individuals requiring a primary series of JE vaccination and rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis on short notice.

Vaccination recommendations for adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

BACKGROUND The number of individuals with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) treated with immunosuppressive drugs is increasing steadily. The variety of immunosuppressive drugs and, in particular, biological therapies is also rising. The immunosuppressants, as well as the AIIRD itself, increase the risk of infection in this population. Thus, preventing infections by means of vaccination is of utmost importance. New Swiss vaccination recommendations for AIIRD patients were initiated by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and prepared by a working group of the Federal Commission for Vaccination Issues as well as by consultation of international experts. METHODS A literature search was performed in electronic databases (Cochrane, Medline, PubMed, Embase). In addition, unpublished literature was identified through a targeted website search of relevant organisations and international conferences dealing with vaccination, infectious diseases and rheumatology. RESULTS Although data are scarce, the following main points were retrieved from the literature. Inactivated vaccines are safe, but their immunogenicity may be reduced in AIIRD patients, especially if they are under immunosuppressive therapy. Rituximab and abatacept appear to reduce significantly immune responses after vaccination. Live vaccines are generally contraindicated under immunosuppressive therapy owing to safety concerns. Specific exceptions, as well as time intervals for the administration of live vaccines after interruption of an immunosuppressive therapy, have been formulated in this article. CONCLUSION More evidence regarding the immunogenicity and safety of vaccinations in AIIRD patients under various therapies is needed. Vaccination recommendations should be updated on a regular basis, as more scientific data will become available.

One-year immunogenicity kinetics and safety of a purified chick embryo cell rabies vaccine and an inactivated Vero cell-derived Japanese encephalitis vaccine administered concomitantly according to a new, 1-week, accelerated primary series.

BACKGROUND Conventional rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and Japanese encephalitis (JE) primary series vaccination regimens each require up to 4 weeks to complete and, thus, may not be feasible for individuals who need these immunizations on short notice. This Phase 3b, randomized, controlled, observer-blind study evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of a purified chick embryo cell culture rabies vaccine and an inactivated, adsorbed JE vaccine according to an accelerated (1 week) regimen when compared with the conventional regimens (4 weeks). This report describes the kinetics of immune responses up to 1 year after vaccination. METHODS A total of 661 healthy adults (18 to ≤65 years) were randomized into the following accelerated or conventional vaccine regimens: Rabies + JE-Conventional, Rabies + JE-Accelerated, Rabies-Conventional and JE-Conventional. Immunogenicity was assessed by virus neutralization tests. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS Irrespective of rabies vaccination regimen, ≥97% of subjects had adequate levels of rabies virus neutralizing antibody (RVNA) concentrations (≥0.5 IU/ml) up to Day 57, with percentages of subjects with RVNA concentrations ≥0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 ranging between 68% in the Rabies + JE-Accelerated group and 80% of subjects in the Rabies-Conventional group. The Rabies + JE-Accelerated group revealed high JE neutralizing antibody titers at all-time points. At Day 366, the percentage of subjects with antibody titers indicative of seroprotection (PRNT50 titers ≥1:10) remained high across JE vaccine groups (86-94%). CONCLUSIONS The accelerated PrEP rabies and JE vaccination regimens, once licensed, could represent a valid alternative in the short-term to currently recommended conventional regimens. The concomitant administration of these two vaccines does not compromise immune responses to any of the vaccine antigens particularly when aiming for short-term protection. Further evidence will clarify the need for and timing to administration of rabies vaccine booster doses in subjects primed with an accelerated PrEP regimen. (NCT01662440).

Unpredictable checks of yellow fever vaccination certificates upon arrival in Tanzania

BACKGROUND Yellow fever (YF) is a mosquito-borne disease, which can be prevented by vaccination. While YF vaccination (YFV) is not generally recommended for travellers to Tanzania, proof of YFV may be required upon arrival. In April 2013, the World Health Organization concluded that one dose of YFV confers lifelong protection and countries have started to adapt their entry requirements. The travellers consultant has to balance the risk of YFV and the risk of encountering problems when entering a country without a valid YFV, especially because countries are slowly implementing the requirements. METHODS We performed a survey among 421 travellers to Tanzania with a pre-travel consultation at the Travel Clinic of the University of Zurich about their experiences with YFV certificate inspections upon arrival in Tanzania between January and November 2015. RESULTS There were three main findings: (i) most vaccine card checks were done while crossing the land border of Tanzania. Inspections were frequently conducted at Arusha airport, less often in Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar. In the latter a significantly larger percentage of individuals arriving by ferry/boat were checked than those arriving by plane. (ii) Checks appeared to be non-systematic. They were also performed in travellers who did not enter Tanzania from a YF-endemic country. No seasonal or daytime pattern could be identified; the thoroughness of checks varied widely. (iii) In the case of travel without valid YFV, an exemption certificate was always accepted. In travellers with neither a valid YFV nor an exemption certificate, travellers reported forced YF vaccination and fines before entry was granted. CONCLUSIONS We recommend YFV or a YF exemption certificate for all travellers to Tanzania until further notice. The decision of whether to vaccinate against YF or to issue an exemption should be based on exposure risk to YF infection in other countries during travel.

Safety of live vaccines on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy—a retrospective study in three Swiss Travel Clinics

Background Patients increasingly benefit from immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medications for a range of conditions allowing them a lifestyle similar to healthy individuals, including travel. However, the administration of live vaccines to immunodeficient patients bears the risk of replication of the attenuated vaccine microorganism. Therefore, live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppression. Data on live vaccinations on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medication are scarce. We identified all travellers seeking pre-travel advice in three Swiss travel clinics with a live vaccine during immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy to ascertain experienced side effects. A retrospective and multi-centre study design was chosen to increase the sample size. Methods This study was conducted in the travel clinics of the University of Zurich; the Swiss TPH, Basel; and Geneva University Hospitals. Travellers on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy who received live vaccines [yellow fever vaccination (YFV), measles/mumps/rubella (MMR), varicella and/ or oral typhoid vaccination (OTV)] between 2008 and 2015 were identified and interviewed. A total of 60 age- and sex-matched controls (matched to Basel/Zurich travel clinics travellers) were included. Results Overall, 197 patients were identified. And 116 patients (59%) and 60 controls were interviewed. YFV was administered 92 times, MMR 21 times, varicella 4 times and OTV 6 times to patients on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy. Most common medications were corticosteroids (n = 45), mesalazine (n = 28) and methotrexate (n = 19). Live vaccines were also administered on biological treatment, e.g. TNF-alpha inhibitors (n = 8). Systemic reactions were observed in 12.2% of the immunosuppressed vs 13.3% of controls; local reactions in 7.8% of the immunosuppressed vs 11.7% of controls. In controls, all reactions were mild/moderate. In the immunosuppressed, 2/21 severe reactions occurred: severe local pain on interferon-beta and severe muscle/joint pain on sulfasalazine. Conclusion Safety of live vaccines given to immunosuppressed patients cannot be concluded. However, it is re-assuring that in the examined patient groups no serious side effects or infections by the attenuated vaccine strain occurred.

Varicella seroprevalence in individuals with a negative or unknown varicella history – results from a large travel clinic in Switzerland between 2008 and 2015

QUESTION UNDER STUDY In Switzerland, vaccination against varicella is not recommended in the basic immunisation schedule. However, for individuals aged 11-40 years who do not have a reliable varicella history the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health recommends either (i) a vaccination or (ii) a serology test and vaccination of those with a negative result. In the Travel Clinic of the University of Zurich, the second strategy is followed. In this study we retrospectively assessed the overall percentage of individuals with varicella-specific antibodies despite a negative history and we examined the influence of age, number of siblings, order of siblings, age difference to siblings and nationality on varicella seropositivity. METHODS Between December 2008 and August 2015, the sera of 1757 individuals with a negative varicella history were tested for varicella antibodies. RESULTS A total of 1593 individuals (91%) had a positive result. We found an increasing trend for varicella seropositivity with increasing age. Those aged less than 40 years were significantly more often seronegative (9.5%) than those aged 40 years and above (6.0%, p = 0.049). Seropositivity was associated with nationality. The percentage of seropositives increased with the number of siblings. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate that, despite the significant varicella seropositivity differences between those aged below and above, the age of 40 may not be an ideal threshold for performing a varicella serology in individuals with a negative or unknown varicella history. In the age groups above 40, testing for varicella antibodies may be especially reasonable in individuals with no or a small number of siblings and in those of specific nationalities.

To vaccinate or let it be--current recommendations and the reality about yellow fever vaccination.

Recommendations to travellers regarding yellow fever vaccination (YFV) are based on personal risk, previous vaccinations, health status of the traveller and border regulations. Recently, WHO extended the recommendation regarding protection after YFV from 10 years to lifelong. We present the results of a survey among Swiss tropical and travel medicine experts, in which they were asked to decide upon