MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
Journal Article

Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects

2015
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
•Lyophilized MVA was more immunogenic than the current liquid formulation of MVA.•The lower ID dose of MVA was immunologically non-inferior to the standard SC dose.•The ID route resulted in more erythema and/or induration than the SC route.•The ID route may increase the number of available doses in an emergency situation. Modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) is being developed as a safer smallpox vaccine and is being placed in the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) as a liquid formulation for subcutaneous (SC) administration at a dose of 1×108 TCID50 in a volume of 0.5mL. This study compared the safety and immunogenicity of the standard formulation, dose and route with both a more stable, lyophilized formulation and with an antigen-sparing intradermal (ID) route of administration. 524 subjects were randomized to receive either a full dose of Lyophilized-SC, a full dose of Liquid-SC or 20% (2×107 TCID50 in 0.1mL) of a full dose Liquid-ID MVA on Days 0 and 28. Safety and immunogenicity were followed through 180 days post second vaccination. Among the 3 groups, the proportion of subjects with moderate/severe functional local reactions was significantly different (P=0.0013) between the Lyophilized-SC group (30.3%), the Liquid-SC group (13.8%) and Liquid-ID group (22.0%) only after first vaccination; and for moderate/severe measured erythema and/or induration after any vaccination (P=0.0001) between the Lyophilized-SC group (58.2%), the Liquid-SC group (58.1%) and the Liquid-ID group (94.8%) and the reactions lasted longer in the Liquid-ID group. In the ID Group, 36.1% of subjects had mild injection site skin discoloration lasting ≥6 months. After second vaccination Day (42–208), geometric mean of peak neutralization titers were 87.8, 49.5 and 59.5 for the Lyophilized-SC, Liquid-SC and Liquid-ID groups, respectively, and the maximum number of responders based on peak titer in each group was 142/145 (97.9%), 142/149 (95.3%) and 138/146 (94.5%), respectively. At 180 days after the second vaccination, geometric mean neutralization titers declined to 11.7, 10.2 and 10.4 with only 54.3%, 39.2% and 35.2% of subjects remaining seropositive for the Lyophilized-SC, Liquid-SC and Liquid-ID groups, respectively. Both the Lyophilized-SC and Liquid-ID groups were considered non-inferior (primary objective) to the Liquid-SC group. Transitioning to a lyophilized formulation, which has a longer shelf life, will not negatively impact immunogenicity. In a situation where insufficient vaccine is available, ID vaccination could be used, increasing the number of available doses of vaccine in the SNS 5-fold (i.e., from 20 million to 100 million doses).