Immunological evaluation of nextgeneration influenza vaccines Othmar G Engelhardt
Today s presentation Evaluation of current influenza vaccines European regulatory guidelines Evaluation of novel vaccines Standardisation of immunoassays 2
Evaluation of current influenza vaccines Serologic analysis established and routinely performed: HI, SRH, VN Correlates of protection (CoP): HI 40 associated with >50% reduction of the risk of influenza infection or influenza disease So-called CHMP criteria 1 : Seroconversion/significant increase neg 40; 4 fold increase 18 60 years of age > 40% >30% > 60 years of age Mean geometric increase >2.5 >2.0 Seroprotection HI: 40 SRH: > 25mm 2 >70% >60% 3 1 Note for guidance on harmonisation of requirements for influenza vaccines, 1997, EMA, CPMP/BWP/214/96
Evaluation of current influenza vaccines (2) CHMP criteria widely used, including for decisions on marketing authorisation/licensure of vaccines Issues with existing CoP and CHMP criteria: Lack of standardisation of assays CoP not established for all age groups/risk groups (particularly elderly and unprimed individuals) No CoP for virus neutralisation assays EMA has withdrawn previous guidance 1 CHMP criteria not applicable in EU anymore 4 1 Explanatory note on the withdrawal of the note for guidance on harmonisation of requirements for influenza vaccines, 2014, EMA/CHMP/VWP/40560/2014
New European non-clinical and clinical guideline 1 Published 21 July; to come into effect 1 February 20 No confirmed immunological correlate of protection However, for new inactivated vaccines, comparison with authorised vaccine possible demonstration of non-inferior immune responses in population sub-groups 5 Comparator vaccine: should be authorised (in the EU), similar manufacturing process, at least some data available on effectiveness For young children (6 36 months): vaccine efficacy trial required For inactivated adjuvanted vaccines, superiority should be demonstrated For authorisation of LAIV, clinical efficacy needed 1 Guideline on influenza vaccines non-clinical and clinical module, 2016, EMA/CHMP/VWP/457259/2014
New European non-clinical and clinical guideline immunological methods Methods to measure antibodies: HI, SRH VN essential that neutralizing antibody titres are determined in all studies For consideration: Anti-NA antibodies Antibody kinetics For zoonotic strains: Cross-reactivity Cross-priming Cross-protection Cell-mediated immunity: Measurement of CMI encouraged ; particularly informative in the elderly Quantity and quality of T cell responses Activation of memory B cells 6
New European non-clinical and clinical guideline (3) New guidance relevant to: LAIV Inactivated split or subunit vaccines and inactivated whole virion vaccines Vaccines that contain adjuvants Principles of the requirements also applicable to: Inactivated vaccines that contain alternative vaccine antigens Vaccines that contain recombinant surface antigens DNA vaccines expressing surface antigen(s) Virus-like particle (VLP)-based vaccines 7
Evaluation of novel vaccines that aim to provide broad protection Underlying principles vary widely between vaccine approaches Vaccines inducing antibodies: 8 Use of adjuvants to broaden humoral immune response Other strategies to induce broader humoral immune response directed against HA head Vaccines inducing anti-ha stem antibodies Vaccines inducing antibodies targeting non-ha antigens (NA, M2e) Classical serologic analyses may be appropriate for some vaccines New or modified assays for antibodies may be required Assays measuring activities of antibodies in conjunction with effector cells (eg ADCC)
Evaluation of novel vaccines that aim to provide broad protection (2) Vaccines inducing CMI: Variety of assays available and in use Characterisation of T and B cell responses May be combined with assays measuring antibodies (if appropriate) Issue: No correlate of protection known for any assays other than HI and SRH Manufacturers/developers need to generate data to enable definition of new CoPs Focus on primary evaluation criteria for vaccine of interest Exploratory assessments to define the immune profile of the vaccine candidate 9
Standardisation of immunoassays for evaluation of novel vaccines Why standardise? To obtain reliable results To make results comparable between studies and laboratories May help to define CoP Approaches: Harmonisation of assay protocols Use of standards Regular assessment of labs through proficiency testing Alternative: Testing (or re-testing) in centralised expert laboratory
Harmonisation of assay protocols Harmonisation of assay procedures is feasible Harmonisation/standardisation of critical reagents may be harder (or impossible) Aspects to be considered in harmonisation: Type of sample Sample storage and preparation Supply of critical reagents, preparation of critical reagents Experimental procedure Method of acquiring read-out (manual, instrumentation) Harmonisation of methods does not always lead to improved agreement between laboratories: E.g. EDQM study for HI and SRH, 2007 2009: common SOPs for both methods did not lead to good agreement between labs 1 11 1 Wood et al, Pharmeur Bio Sci Notes, 2011, 1:36 54
Use of biological standards Biological activity can only be measured in a biological assay SI units (eg mass) do not capture the activity of a biological analyte International Unit: A fraction of a vial of a biologically active substance, arbitrarily defined as having the biological activity of 1 IU Method not defined Use of standard permits measurement in IU, irrespective of method (within limits) Different levels/types of standard WHO International Standards highest level, defines the IU National/regional/pharmacopoeial standards Working reagents In-house standards Run controls 12
Biological standards: an example Collaborative study to establish the WHO 2 nd International Standard for antibody to influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 HI assay VN assay 30 29 Sample D - Absolute HI titres 30 29 Sample D - Absolute VN titres 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 Antibody titres to H1N1pdm09 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 15 16 16 15 06 05 01 13 11 05 -ve 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 2560 5120 240 18 11 09 05 03 02 18 09 07 05 03 02 01 03 08 12 14 12 04 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 16 16 12 15 15 12 18B 01A 18B 05 11 13 01A 03 08 -ve 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 2560 5120 240 06 18A 03 02 18A 07 03 02 01B 01B 14 HI Titre VN Titre X 9A X 181 A _C al A _C hc h N IB R G 121 X 9A X 181 A _C al A _C hc h N IB R G 121 Antibody titres relative to /202 (2 nd IS) 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sample D - HI relative to sample F (IU) 01 11 06 16 16 05 -ve 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 2560 5120 240 18 15 12 11 09 05 03 02 18 15 14 13 12 09 07 05 04 03 02 01 03 05 08 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 16 16 Sample D - VN relative to sample F (IU) -ve 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 2560 5120 240 02 13 07 02 18B 18A 12 11 03 01B 01A 18B 18A 15 14 12 06 03 01B 01A 03 05 08 15 HI relative to sample F in IU VN relative to sample F in IU X 9A X 181 A _C al A _C hc h N IB R G 121 X 9A X 181 A _C al A _C hc h N IB R G 121 13
No. of individual results No. of individual results Biological standards: example 2 European re-testing exercise: included WHO 1 st International Standard for antibody to influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Spread of ratios of Manufacturers data to NIBSC data GMTs - raw data 1.93 +/- 1.28 Ratio of manufacturers data to NIBSC data 8 6 0.56 +/- 0.28 Spread of ratios of Manufacturers data to NIBSC data GMTs - adjusted data using IS 09/194 4 2 0 Ratio of manufacturers data to NIBSC data 14 1 Wagner et al, Vaccine, 2012, 30:4113-4122
Use of biological standards for vaccines that induce broad immune response? Where antibody response is targeted, antibody/serum standards may be feasible May have to be product specific if particular epitopes are targeted Where specific biological analytes (e.g. cytokines) are measured, standards may be available or feasible Cell standards for CMI assays have been made and more could be prepared Freeze-dried cells for intracellular cytokine staining Freeze-dried cells for ELIspot 15
Proficiency testing Testing a laboratory s quality system with samples of known but undisclosed content Provides a snapshot of a lab s performance Provides a comparison of a lab s performance with that of other labs Can highlight problems But does not solve them Can drive move to standardisation Examples of EQA schemes: WHO EQAP for PCR detection of influenza A and B viruses UK NEQAS EQA schemes for detection of various pathogens Includes a few serological EQA schemes (e.g. measles and mumps, HIV) 16
Alternative approach: Use of centralised testing lab Is not standardisation, but can help to make results comparable When standardisation has not been achieved yet When standardisation is difficult For niche methods or products incentive to standardise may be low Considerations: Central lab should be expert Assay should be well established, qualified or validated Central lab should have capacity to take on work now and in future (from competitors?)
Efforts towards standardisation of immunoassays for evaluation of influenza vaccines Value of standardisation recognised by many in the field Even well-established, old assays not fully standardised Primary focus so far on classical assays (HI and VN) Several initiatives 18
CONSISE Consortium for the Standardisation of Influenza Seroepidemiology Mission statement: CONSISE is a global partnership aiming to standardise the seroepidemiology of influenza and other respiratory pathogens, and to develop comprehensive investigation protocols for use in optimising the control of influenza and other respiratory pathogens. Comprised of two interactive working groups: Epidemiology and Laboratory; and a Steering Committee More than 0 members from over 40 countries CONSISE shares study protocols and laboratory assay protocols and other information on the internet with free access. Membership is free and open to all individuals whose activities may contribute to those of CONSISE http://consise.tghn.org 19
CONSISE: Development of consensus assay protocols To improve assay standardisation, CONSISE developed consensus protocols for the HI and VN assays. Parameters were identified within each assay with potential variables listed. Laboratories entered the variable they preferred, adding a new variable if not specified. All details were collated, de-identified and the data summarised. Consensus protocols were developed; parameters classified as required or recommended. Consensus protocols for HAI and MN assays are published on the CONSISE website. Many member laboratories have aligned their assay parameters to the consensus protocols Data analysis of comparative study to evaluate the use of consensus protocols vs in-house protocols is on-going 20
Other initiatives (1) UNISEC: European, FP7 funded consortium to identify, develop and clinically test the most promising leads for a universal influenza vaccine One of the objectives: To establish experimental conditions including standardized assays which allow the comparative evaluation of vaccine concepts in animal models and in clinical trials Standardisation of CMI assays challenging Work-around: testing in a centralised lab 21
Other initiatives (2) FLUCOP: European, IMI funded project Long term goal: to improve and standardise the existing immunological assays applicable for the definition of correlates of protection in future efficacy trials to develop new assays Standardisation of HI and VN assays Understanding of other assays 22
Other initiatives (3) EDUFLUVAC: European, FP7 funded project With NIAID, co-organised a workshop last year at NIBSC: Workshop on immunoassay standardisation for universal flu vaccines Conclusions: Many assays used Efforts on harmonisation and standardisation need to concentrate on primary evaluation criteria Standardisation is an important goal There is a long way to go http://www.edufluvac.eu/node/11 23
Conclusions Established inactivated vaccines have been assessed using established serologic assays: HI, VN, SRH Correlates of protection do not exist for all assays and all age/risk groups Existing correlates of protection are being questioned even where they exist New EU guidelines focus on better characterisation of the vaccine and the immune response and vaccine effectiveness/efficacy data Novel vaccines employing different mechanisms of action require new or modified assays Standardisation of immunoassays is challenging but important and may aid the establishment of new CoPs 24
Acknowledgements Philip Minor Stacey Efstathiou Diane Major John Wood Jim Robertson Joanna Waldock Richard Stebbings Maria Van Kerkhove Karen Laurie Angus Nicoll Odile Leroy Flavia D Alessio Sophie Houard Ed Remarque Norbert Stockhofe Ed Schmidt David Spiro Rachelle Salomon Stephen Norley 25