MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981921261 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2421

2744. A Phase I Randomized, Observer-Blind, Controlled, Dose Escalation Trial of the Safety and Tolerability of a Single Intramuscular Dose of a PAL Adjuvant (Laboratory Code, FB-631) Co-administered with Seasonal TIV (2013–2014) to Healthy Adults ≥18–50 Years of Age

2019· article· en· W2981921261 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne M. Langley, Élodie Pastural, Scott A. Halperin, Shelly McNeil, May ElSherif, Donna MacKinnon‐Cameron, Lingyun Ye, Réjean Lapointe, Janet E. McElhaney, Luis Martin, Marilène Bolduc, Marie-Ève Laliberté-Gagné, Denis Leclerc, Pierre Savard

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeNOSM UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversity of SaskatchewanNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineELISPOTAdjuvantTolerabilityImmunogenicityReactogenicityImmunologyAdverse effectPeripheral blood mononuclear cellInternal medicineVirologyAntibodyAntigenCD8Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Inactivated influenza vaccines (IV) efficacy is variable and sometimes poor. In this phase 1 trial the safety and immunogenicity of a novel nanoparticle adjuvant (Papaya Mosaic Virus (PapMV or PAL) at different dose levels combined with inactivated trivalent IV (TIV; FLUVIRAL® 2013–2014, GSK, Kirkland PQ) was assessed. Nonpathogenic in mammals, PAL is recognized as a pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP) which stimulates innate, cell-mediated immunity (CMI) and adaptive immunity in naïve mice through activation of toll like receptor 7 and 8. Methods Healthy persons 18–50 years of age were randomized to one of 6 study groups: 30 µg, 60 µg, 120 µg or 240 µg of PAL with 0.25 mL TIV, 240 µg of PAL with 0.125 mL TIV, or control (0.5 mL TIV). Solicited local and general adverse events (AE) were collected Day (D)0 to 6, unsolicited AE to D28, and serious AE to D1095. Hemagglutination-inhibition assays (HI), antibody to Influenza A virus nucleoprotein (NP), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) for measurement of interferon-gamma (IFNg) ELISPOT (response to PepMix influenza A H2N2 Ann Arbour NP, MP1, and an influenza peptide pool), granzyme B, and IFNg:IL:10 ratio were collected on D0, 7, 28, 120, and 180. Results The most common solicited AEs were transient mild-to-moderate local pain (62.5%–87.5% of participants/group), drowsiness (≤37.5% of participants/group) and generalized muscle aches (12.5–50% of participants/group). There was one unrelated SAE. All participants had HI and anti-NP titers at baseline. HI GMTs increased at D28 post vaccine in most groups (Figure 1) and waned over time. HI fold Ab (Far) responses to TIV strains were poor in all groups (≤37.5% of participants/group had 4-Far to any strain). CMI results were consistent with humoral responses. Conclusion The PAL adjuvant in doses of 30 to 240µg combined with reduced TIV dosages was safe with no signals up to 3 years after vaccine. Reduced doses of TIV co-presented with 240 µg PAL had similar HI GMTs as TIV. The CMI results suggest that the assessment of PAL efficacy on TIV immunization would have to be conducted in an influenza naïve population. Disclosures Scott Halperin, MD, GlaxoSmithKline: Ad hoc advisory boards, Other Financial or Material Support, Research Grant; Janssen Pharm: Research Grant; sanofi pasteur: Ad hoc advisory boards, Other Financial or Material Support, Research Grant.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→