MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393094705 · doi:10.1101/2024.03.21.24304540

Equivalence of Freeze-dried and Liquid-frozen Formulations of MVA-BN as Smallpox and Mpox Vaccine

2024· preprint· en· W4393094705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard N. Greenberg, Darja Schmidt, Daniela Reichhardt, Siegfried Röesch, Sanja Vidojkovic, Jane Maclennan, Liddy Chen, Robert Gruenert, Christian Kreusel, Heinz Weidenthaler, Thomas P.H. Meyer, Paul Chaplin

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority
KeywordsReactogenicityVacciniaSmallpox vaccineSmallpoxModified vaccinia AnkaraMonkeypoxMedicineVaccinationVirologyImmune systemImmunologyChemistryImmunization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Orthopox virus-induced diseases such as smallpox and mpox (also known as monkeypox previously) remain a serious public health concern. Modified Vaccinia Ankara Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN) has been approved in its liquid-frozen (LF) formulation for prevention of smallpox and mpox in the US, Canada and EU. A freeze-dried (FD) formulation might confer additional benefits such as longer shelf life and less reliance on cold chain storage and transport, thus can better meet the potential challenge of large quantity vaccine deployment in emergency situations. In a phase 2 clinical trial, 651 vaccinia-naïve participants were vaccinated with two doses of MVA-BN LF or FD, 4 weeks apart. The objectives were to compare MVA-BN FD with LF in terms of vaccine-induced immune responses, safety and reactogenicity. Strong vaccinia-specific humoral and cellular immune responses were induced by both formulations, with peak humoral responses at Week 6 and peak cellular responses at Week 2. At Week 6, geometric means of total antibody titers were 1096 (95% CI 1013, 1186) from the FD group and 877 (95% CI 804, 956) from the LF group, achieving the primary endpoint of non-inferiority of MVA-BN FD compared to MVA-BN LF. At Week 2, geometric means of T cell spot forming units were 449 (95% CI 341, 590) from the FD group and 316 (95% CI 234, 427) from the LF group. Both formulations of MVA-BN were well tolerated, with similar unsolicited AEs and solicited systemic reactions in both groups but slightly higher local reactions in the FD group. No vaccine related serious adverse events (SAEs) or vaccine related AE of special interest were reported. The FD formulation of MVA-BN was shown to be equivalent to the LF formulation in immunogenicity, and comparable safety findings were observed from both formulations. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01668537 Highlights Equivalence of MVA-BN freeze-dried and liquid-frozen formulations in immunogenicity MVA-BN FD and MVA-BN LF are comparable in clinical safety and reactogenicity Peak T cell responses were observed 2 weeks after the first vaccination

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207