MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407394865 · doi:10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.101000

Safety and immunogenicity of an adjuvanted chikungunya virus virus-like particle (CHIKV VLP) vaccine in previous recipients of other alphavirus vaccines versus alphavirus vaccine-naive controls: an open-label, parallel-group, age-matched, sex-matched, phase 2 randomised controlled study

2025· article· en· W4407394865 on OpenAlexaff
Melinda Hamer, James McCarty, Benjamin C. Pierson, Jason A. Regules, Jason Mendy, Aaron D Sanborn, Christina L. Gardner, Jeannine Haller, Melissa K. Gregory, Dani Liggett, Pamela J. Glass, Neha Ghosh, Sarah Royalty Tredo, Kelly L. Warfield, Crystal W. Burke, Christine U. Lee, David Saunders, Lisa Bedell, Jason S. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Microbe · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsNordic Life Science Pipeline (Canada)
FundersU.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious DiseasesUniformed Services University of the Health SciencesDefense Health AgencyU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsAlphavirusImmunogenicityVirologyChikungunyaVirusTogaviridaeSerotypeVirus-like particleMedicineBiologyImmunologyImmune systemRecombinant DNAGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Immune responses to alphavirus vaccines might be impaired when heterologous alphavirus vaccines are administered sequentially. We aimed to compare immunogenicity and safety of a chikungunya virus virus-like particle (CHIKV VLP) vaccine in previous recipients of heterologous alphavirus vaccines with alphavirus-naive controls in the USA. METHODS: -transformed titre as the dependent variable, and study arm, age, and sex as predictors. Least squares means, difference, and 95% CIs were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean titres (GMTs). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03992872. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2019, and Jan 19, 2021, 60 participants (20 [33%] female and 40 [67%] male; 40 (67%) White; median age 47·0 years [IQR 13·5]), 30 previous alphavirus vaccine recipients and 30 alphavirus vaccine-naive controls, were enrolled, vaccinated with CHIKV VLP, and completed the trial. The anti-CHIKV neutralising antibody seroconversion rate at day 22 was 100% (95% CI 88·6-100) in both groups. GMTs peaked in previous alphavirus vaccine recipients and alphavirus vaccine-naive controls at day 22 (2032·5 [95% CI 1413·0-2923·6] and 2299·2 [1598·1-3307·8], respectively) and were similar between the groups on day 22 and all subsequent visits. A higher proportion of previous alphavirus vaccine recipients (93·3% [95% CI 78·7-98·2]) had a four-fold neutralising antibody increase at day 8 than did alphavirus vaccine-naive controls (66·7% [48·8-80·8]; p=0·021). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of solicited adverse events between the previous alphavirus vaccine recipients and alphavirus vaccine-naive controls (53·3% vs 40·0%, respectively), although the relatively small sample size of the trial limited the power to detect a significant difference, and there were no reported vaccine-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: CHIKV VLP vaccine was well tolerated and similarly immunogenic in both alphavirus vaccine-naive participants and previous recipients of a heterologous alphavirus vaccine. There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups. The results of this study support the use of CHIKV VLP vaccine in individuals with previous alphavirus vaccine exposure. FUNDING: Defense Health Program, Emergent Travel Health, and Bavarian Nordic A/S.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet MicrobeSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207