MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396686977 · doi:10.1016/s2666-5247(24)00024-7

Assessment of CD8+ T-cell mediated immunity in an influenza A(H3N2) human challenge model in Belgium: a single centre, randomised, double-blind phase 2 study

2024· article· en· W4396686977 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas G. Evans, Flora Castellino, Monika Kowalik Dobczyk, Ana Marie Walley, Katrin Van Leuven, Jelle Klein, Kathryn Rutkowski, Chris Ellis, Elizabeth Eagling-Vose, John J. Treanor, Carel van Baalen, Ella Filkov, Cyril Laurent, Juilee Thacker, Jason Asher, Armen Donabedian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Microbe · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsCaprion (Canada)
FundersBiomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesAdministration for Strategic Preparedness and Response
KeywordsDouble blindCD8ImmunologyMedicineVirologyCytotoxic T cellImmunityBiologyImmune systemIn vitroPathologyGeneticsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Protection afforded by inactivated influenza vaccines can theoretically be improved by inducing T-cell responses to conserved internal influenza A antigens. We assessed whether, in an influenza controlled human infection challenge, susceptible individuals receiving a vaccine boosting T-cell responses would exhibit lower viral load and decreased symptoms compared with placebo recipients. Methods In this single centre, randomised, double-blind phase 2 study, healthy adult (aged 18–55 years) volunteers with microneutralisation titres of less than 20 to the influenza A(H3N2) challenge strain were enrolled at an SGS quarantine facility in Antwerp, Belgium. Participants were randomly assigned double-blind using a permuted-block list with a 3:2 allocation ratio to receive 0·5 mL intramuscular injections of modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) expressing H3N2 nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix protein 1 (M1) at 1·5 × 10 8 plaque forming units (4·3 × 10 8 50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID 50 ]; MVA-NP+M1 group) or saline placebo (placebo group). At least 6 weeks later, participants were challenged intranasally with 0·5 mL of a 1 × 10 6 TCID 50 /mL dose of influenza A/Belgium/4217/2015 (H3N2). Nasal swabs were collected twice daily from day 2 until day 11 for viral PCR, and symptoms of influenza were recorded from day 2 until day 11. The primary outcome was to determine the efficacy of MVA-NP+M1 vaccine to reduce the degree of nasopharyngeal viral shedding as measured by the cumulative viral area under the curve using a log-transformed quantitative PCR. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03883113. Findings Between May 2 and Oct 24, 2019, 145 volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to the MVA-NP+M1 group (n=87) or the placebo group (n=58). Of these, 118 volunteers entered the challenge period (71 in the MVA-NP+M1 group and 47 in the placebo group) and 117 participants completed the study (71 in the MVA-NP+M1 group and 46 in the placebo group). 78 (54%) of the 145 volunteers were female and 67 (46%) were male. The primary outcome, overall viral load as determined by quantitative PCR, did not show a statistically significant difference between the MVA-NP+M1 (mean 649·7 [95% CI 552·7–746·7) and placebo groups (mean 726·1 [604·0–848·2]; p=0·17). All reported treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 11 in the vaccination phase and 51 in the challenge phase) were grade 1 and 2, except for two grade 3 TEAEs in the placebo group in the challenge phase. A grade 4 second trimester fetal death, considered possibly related to the MVA-NP+M1 vaccination, and an acute psychosis reported in a placebo participant during the challenge phase were reported. Interpretation The use of an MVA vaccine to expand CD4 + or CD8 + T cells to conserved influenza A antigens in peripheral blood did not affect nasopharyngeal viral load in an influenza H3N2 challenge model in seronegative, healthy adults. Funding Department of Health and Human Services; Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; and Barinthus Biotherapeutics.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet MicrobeSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207