Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30917165›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Duration of protection from live attenuated vs. sub unit HSV-2 vaccines in the guinea pig model of genital herpes: Reassessing efficacy using endpoints from clinical trials.

David I Bernstein, Rhonda D Cardin, Derek A Pullum, Fernando J Bravo, Konstantin G Kousoulas, David A Dixon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Vaccines to prevent genital herpes.Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine · 2020
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David I BernsteinDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0100-1991
Rhonda D CardinSchool of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States of America.
Derek A PullumDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.
Fernando J BravoDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.
Konstantin G KousoulasSchool of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States of America.
David A DixonDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USLouisiana State University · US

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201000008C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough herpes simplex viruses (HSV) are a major target for vaccine development no vaccine is currently licensed.

methodsA live attenuated HSV virus vaccine, VC2 was compared to a subunit HSV vaccine, glycoprotein D (gD2) administered with the adjuvant, MPL/Alum using the guinea pig model of genital herpes. Three doses of intramuscular (IM) vaccine were provided followed by intravaginal challenge with HSV-2 at either 3 weeks or six months after the last vaccination.

resultsBoth VC2 and gD2 vaccines reduced acute genital disease. VC2 was somewhat more effective in reducing acute vaginal replication, the amount of virus in neural tissue, subsequent recurrent disease and recurrent virus shedding following challenge at 3 weeks post vaccination. Both vaccines continued to provide protection at 6 months after vaccination but the differences between the vaccines became more pronounced in favor of the live attenuated vaccine, VC2. Significant differences in acute disease, acute vaginal virus replication, recurrent disease and recurrent virus shedding (P<0.05 for each) was observed comparing the vaccines. Re-examination of protection for this study using criteria similar to those used in recent clinical trials (inclusion of recurrent disease) showed that efficacy may not be as high in this model as previously thought prompting a need to assess the best predictive outcomes for protection in humans.

conclusionWhile both the live attenuated vaccine, VC2, and the gD2 subunit vaccine provided protection, the duration of protection appeared to be greater for VC2. Using the same evaluation criteria as used in human trials provided unique insights into the utility of the guinea pig model.

Indexed as

AnimalsClinical Trials as TopicDisease Models, AnimalFemaleGuinea PigsHerpes GenitalisHerpes Simplex Virus VaccinesHerpesvirus 2, HumanHumansImmunization ScheduleTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, SubunitVaginaViral Envelope Proteinsglycoprotein D-herpes simplex virus type 2Herpes Simplex Virus VaccinesVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, SubunitViral Envelope Proteins

Identifiers

PMID30917165
PMCPMC6436793
OpenAlexW2923418815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.