Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27533046›Full record

Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Using a Human Challenge Model of Infection to Measure Vaccine Efficacy: A Randomised, Controlled Trial Comparing the Typhoid Vaccines M01ZH09 with Placebo and Ty21a.

Thomas C Darton, Claire Jones, Christoph J Blohmke, Claire S Waddington, Liqing Zhou, Anna Peters, Kathryn Haworth, Rebecca Sie, Christopher A Green, Catherine A Jeppesen and 13 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01405521 (Understanding Typhoid Disease After Vaccination), which is not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01405521 phase2completednot on this map

Understanding Typhoid Disease After Vaccination: a Single Centre, Randomised, Doubleblind, Placebo Controlled Study to Evaluate M01ZH09 in a Healthy Adult Challenge Model, Using Ty21a Vaccine as a Positive Control.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OxfordRan2011 to 2022Enrolled99ConditionsTyphoid Fever, Enteric Fever, TyphoidArmsVaccine placebo (excipients only), Ty21a, M10ZH09 vaccine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Distinct time-dependentFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Shigella-Controlled Human Infection Models: Current and Future Perspectives.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas C DartonOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2209-9956
Claire JonesOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Christoph J BlohmkeOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Claire S WaddingtonOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Liqing ZhouOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Anna PetersOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Kathryn HaworthOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rebecca SieOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Christopher A GreenOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Catherine A JeppesenOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Maria MooreOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ben A V ThompsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Tessa JohnOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Robert A KingsleyMicrobial Pathogenesis Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Ly-Mee YuNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Merryn VoyseyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Zoe HindleEmergent Product Development UK Ltd, Emergent BioSolutions, Wokingham, United Kingdom.
Stephen LockhartEmergent Product Development UK Ltd, Emergent BioSolutions, Wokingham, United Kingdom.
Marcelo B SzteinCenter for Vaccine Development, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Gordon DouganMicrobial Pathogenesis Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Brian AngusNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Myron M LevineCenter for Vaccine Development, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Andrew J PollardOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
University of Oxford · GBEmergent BioSolutions (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USWellcome Sanger Institute · GB

Funding

Wild-type S. typhi Infection in Humans: Integrated Immunoprotective MechanismsU19AI082655 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI SZTEIN, MARCELO B. · 2009 to 2018
$27.8M
Shigella Live Vector-Based Multivalent VaccineU19AI109776 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI LEVINE, MYRON MAX · 2014 to 2018
$25.4M
IMMUNE MECHANISMS OF PROTECTION IN S TYPHI VACCINESR01AI036525 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI Marcelo B. Sztein · 1994 to 2026
$12.2M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI036525NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI082655NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI109776Wellcome Trust 092661Wellcome Trust 100891
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTyphoid persists as a major cause of global morbidity. While several licensed vaccines to prevent typhoid are available, they are of only moderate efficacy and unsuitable for use in children less than two years of age. Development of new efficacious vaccines is complicated by the human host-restriction of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi) and lack of clear correlates of protection. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the protective efficacy of a single dose of the oral vaccine candidate, M01ZH09, in susceptible volunteers by direct typhoid challenge. METHODS AND

findingsWe performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adult participants at a single centre in Oxford (UK). Participants were allocated to receive one dose of double-blinded M01ZH09 or placebo or 3-doses of open-label Ty21a. Twenty-eight days after vaccination, participants were challenged with 104CFU S. Typhi Quailes strain. The efficacy of M01ZH09 compared with placebo (primary outcome) was assessed as the percentage of participants reaching pre-defined endpoints constituting typhoid diagnosis (fever and/or bacteraemia) during the 14 days after challenge. Ninety-nine participants were randomised to receive M01ZH09 (n = 33), placebo (n = 33) or 3-doses of Ty21a (n = 33). After challenge, typhoid was diagnosed in 18/31 (58.1% [95% CI 39.1 to 75.5]) M01ZH09, 20/30 (66.7% [47.2 to 87.2]) placebo, and 13/30 (43.3% [25.5 to 62.6]) Ty21a vaccine recipients. Vaccine efficacy (VE) for one dose of M01ZH09 was 13% [95% CI -29 to 41] and 35% [-5 to 60] for 3-doses of Ty21a. Retrospective multivariable analyses demonstrated that pre-existing anti-Vi antibody significantly reduced susceptibility to infection after challenge; a 1 log increase in anti-Vi IgG resulting in a 71% decrease in the hazard ratio of typhoid diagnosis ([95% CI 30 to 88%], p = 0.006) during the 14 day challenge period. Limitations to the study included the requirement to limit the challenge period prior to treatment to 2 weeks, the intensity of the study procedures and the high challenge dose used resulting in a stringent model.

conclusionsDespite successfully demonstrating the use of a human challenge study to directly evaluate vaccine efficacy, a single-dose M01ZH09 failed to demonstrate significant protection after challenge with virulent Salmonella Typhi in this model. Anti-Vi antibody detected prior to vaccination played a major role in outcome after challenge.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01405521) and EudraCT (number 2011-000381-35).

Indexed as

AdultAntibodies, BacterialDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHealthy VolunteersHuman ExperimentationHumansImmunoglobulin GMalePlacebosPolysaccharides, BacterialSalmonella typhiTyphoid FeverTyphoid-Paratyphoid VaccinesVaccines, AttenuatedYoung AdultAntibodies, BacterialImmunoglobulin GPlacebosPolysaccharides, BacterialTy21a typhoid vaccineTyphoid-Paratyphoid Vaccinestyphoid vaccine M01ZH09Vaccines, Attenuated

Identifiers

PMID27533046
PMCPMC4988630
OpenAlexW2510065326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.