Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp 1015–1024 | Cite as

Vaccine Development for Tuberculosis: Current Progress

  • Ian M. OrmeEmail author
Leading Article

Abstract

Very substantial efforts have been made over the past decade or more to develop vaccines against tuberculosis. Historically, this began with a view to replace the current vaccine, Bacillus Calmette Guérin (BCG), but more recently most candidates are either new forms of this bacillus, or are designed to boost immunity in children given BCG as infants. Good progress is being made, but very few have, as yet, progressed into clinical trials. The leading candidate has advanced to phase IIb efficacy testing, with disappointing results. This article discusses the various types of vaccines, including those designed to be used in a prophylactic setting, either alone or BCG-boosting, true therapeutic (post-exposure) vaccines, and therapeutic vaccines designed to augment chemotherapy. While there is no doubt that progress is still being made, we have a growing awareness of the limitations of our animal model screening processes, further amplified by the fact that we still do not have a clear picture of the immunological responses involved, and the precise type of long-lived immunity that effective new vaccines will need to induce.

Keywords

Tuberculosis Purify Protein Derivative Therapeutic Vaccine Smallpox Vaccine Rifapentine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the support, enthusiasm, advice, and periodic admonishment from many of his colleagues, including Randy Basaraba, Diane Ordway, David McMurray, Helen McShane, and Ann Rawkins.

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Orme has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Smith KC, Orme IM, Starke J. The BCG Vaccine. In: Plotkin S, Orenstein W, Offit P, editors. Vaccines. 6th ed. London: WB Saunders; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen P, Doherty TM. The success and failure of BCG: implications for a novel tuberculosis vaccine. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005;3:656–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orme IM. Development of new vaccines and drugs for TB: limitations and potential strategic errors. Future Microbiol. 2011;6:161–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orme IM. New vaccines against tuberculosis: the status of current research. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1999;13:169–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersen P. TB vaccines: progress and problems. Trends Immunol. 2001;22:160–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaufmann SH. Is the development of a new tuberculosis vaccine possible? Nat Med. 2000;6:955–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tameris MD, Hatherill M, Landry BS, et al. Safety and efficacy of MVA85A, a new tuberculosis vaccine, in infants previously vaccinated with BCG: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet. 1 Feb 2013 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McShane H. Tuberculosis vaccines: beyond bacille Calmette-Guerin. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013;366:2782–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abel B, Tameris M, Mansoor N, et al. The novel tuberculosis vaccine, AERAS-402, induces robust and polyfunctional CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;181:1407–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Skeiky YA, Alderson MR, Ovendale PJ, et al. Differential immune responses and protective efficacy induced by components of a tuberculosis polyprotein vaccine, Mtb72F, delivered as naked DNA or recombinant protein. J Immunol. 2004;172:7618–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brandt L, Skeiky YA, Alderson MR, et al. The protective effect of the Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine is increased by coadministration with the Mycobacterium tuberculosis 72-kilodalton fusion polyprotein Mtb72F in M. tuberculosis-infected guinea pigs. Infect Immun. 2004;72:6622–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spertini F, Audran R, Lurati F, et al. The candidate tuberculosis vaccine Mtb72F/AS02 in PPD positive adults: a randomized controlled phase I/II study. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2012;93:179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Day CL, Tameris M, Mansoor N, et al. Induction and Regulation of T Cell Immunity by the Novel TB Vaccine M72/AS01 in South African Adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 10 Jan 2013 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aagaard C, Hoang T, Dietrich J, et al. A multistage tuberculosis vaccine that confers efficient protection before and after exposure. Nat Med. 2011;17:189–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin PL, Dietrich J, Tan E, et al. The multistage vaccine H56 boosts the effects of BCG to protect cynomolgus macaques against active tuberculosis and reactivation of latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. J Clin Invest. 2012;122:303–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bertholet S, Ireton GC, Ordway DJ, et al. A defined tuberculosis vaccine candidate boosts BCG and protects against multidrug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(53):53ra74.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baldwin SL, Bertholet S, Reese VA, Ching LK, Reed SG, Coler RN. The importance of adjuvant formulation in the development of a tuberculosis vaccine. J Immunol. 2012;188:2189–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Billeskov R, Elvang TT, Andersen PL, Dietrich J. The HyVac4 subunit vaccine efficiently boosts BCG-primed anti-mycobacterial protective immunity. PLoS One. 2012;7:e39909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goonetilleke NP, McShane H, Hannan CM, Anderson RJ, Brookes RH, Hill AV. Enhanced immunogenicity and protective efficacy against Mycobacterium tuberculosis of bacille Calmette-Guerin vaccine using mucosal administration and boosting with a recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara. J Immunol. 2003;171:1602–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McShane H. Developing an improved vaccine against tuberculosis. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2004;3:299–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McShane H, Brookes R, Gilbert SC, Hill AV. Enhanced immunogenicity of CD4(+) T-cell responses and protective efficacy of a DNA-modified vaccinia virus Ankara prime-boost vaccination regimen for murine tuberculosis. Infect Immun. 2001;69:681–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McShane H, Hill A. Prime-boost immunisation strategies for tuberculosis. Microbes Infect. 2005;7:962–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Williams A, Goonetilleke NP, McShane H, et al. Boosting with poxviruses enhances Mycobacterium bovis BCG efficacy against tuberculosis in guinea pigs. Infect Immun. 2005;73:3814–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    White AD, Sibley L, Dennis MJ, et al. An evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of a candidate TB vaccine, MVA85A, delivered by aerosol to the lungs of macaques. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2013;20(5):663-72.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer J, Harris SA, Satti I, et al. Comparing the safety and immunogenicity of a candidate TB vaccine MVA85A administered by intramuscular and intradermal delivery. Vaccine. 2013;31:1026–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kato-Maeda M, Shanley CA, Ackart D, et al. Beijing sublineages of Mycobacterium tuberculosis differ in pathogenicity in the guinea pig. Clin Vacc Immunol. 2012;19:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ordway DJ, Shang S, Henao-Tamayo M, et al. Mycobacterium bovis BCG-mediated protection against W-Beijing strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is diminished concomitant with the emergence of regulatory T cells. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011;18:1527–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shang S, Harton M, Tamayo MH, et al. Increased Foxp3 expression in guinea pigs infected with W-Beijing strains of M. tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2011;91:378–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grode L, Seiler P, Baumann S, et al. Increased vaccine efficacy against tuberculosis of recombinant Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette-Guerin mutants that secrete listeriolysin. J Clin Invest. 2005;115:2472–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grode L, Ganoza CA, Brohm C, Weiner J 3rd, Eisele B, Kaufmann SH. Safety and immunogenicity of the recombinant BCG vaccine VPM1002 in a phase 1 open-label randomized clinical trial. Vaccine. 2013;31:1340–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nambiar JK, Pinto R, Aguilo JI, et al. Protective immunity afforded by attenuated, PhoP-deficient Mycobacterium tuberculosis is associated with sustained generation of CD4+ T-cell memory. Eur J Immunol. 2012;42:385–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Verreck FA, Vervenne RA, Kondova I, et al. MVA.85A boosting of BCG and an attenuated, phoP deficient M. tuberculosis vaccine both show protective efficacy against tuberculosis in rhesus macaques. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Orme IM. The Achilles heel of BCG. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2010;90:329–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hinchey J, Jeon BY, Alley H, et al. Lysine auxotrophy combined with deletion of the SecA2 gene results in a safe and highly immunogenic candidate live attenuated vaccine for tuberculosis. PLoS One. 2011;6:e15857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sambandamurthy VK, Derrick SC, Hsu T, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis DeltaRD1 DeltapanCD: a safe and limited replicating mutant strain that protects immunocompetent and immunocompromised mice against experimental tuberculosis. Vaccine. 2006;24:6309–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sambandamurthy VK, Derrick SC, Jalapathy KV, et al. Long-term protection against tuberculosis following vaccination with a severely attenuated double lysine and pantothenate auxotroph of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infect Immun. 2005;73:1196–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sambandamurthy VK, Jacobs WR Jr. Live attenuated mutants of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as candidate vaccines against tuberculosis. Microbes Infect. 2005;7:955–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sampson SL, Dascher CC, Sambandamurthy VK, et al. Protection elicited by a double leucine and pantothenate auxotroph of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in guinea pigs. Infect Immun. 2004;72:3031–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zimmerman DM, Waters WR, Lyashchenko KP, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis DeltalysA DeltapanCD vaccine in domestic cats infected with feline immunodeficiency virus. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2009;16:427–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hinchey J, Lee S, Jeon BY, et al. Enhanced priming of adaptive immunity by a proapoptotic mutant of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:2279–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sweeney KA, Dao DN, Goldberg MF, et al. A recombinant Mycobacterium smegmatis induces potent bactericidal immunity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat Med. 2011;17:1261–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Turner J, Rhoades ER, Keen M, Belisle JT, Frank AA, Orme IM. Effective preexposure tuberculosis vaccines fail to protect when they are given in an immunotherapeutic mode. Infect Immun. 2000;68:1706–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cardona PJ. RUTI: a new chance to shorten the treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2006;86:273–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gil O, Vilaplana C, Guirado E, et al. Enhanced gamma interferon responses of mouse spleen cells following immunotherapy for tuberculosis relapse. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008;15:1742–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vilaplana C, Montane E, Pinto S, et al. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase I clinical trial of the therapeutical antituberculous vaccine RUTI. Vaccine. 2010;28:1106–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Coler RN, Bertholet S, Pine SO, et al. Therapeutic immunization against Mycobacterium tuberculosis is an effective adjunct to antibiotic treatment. J Infect Dis. 2013;207(8):1242–52.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Turner OC, Keefe RG, Sugawara I, Yamada H, Orme IM. SWR mice are highly susceptible to pulmonary infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infect Immun. 2003;71:5266–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Faujdar J, Gupta P, Natrajan M, et al. Mycobacterium indicus pranii as stand-alone or adjunct immunotherapeutic in treatment of experimental animal tuberculosis. Indian J Med Res. 2012;134:696–703.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gupta A, Ahmad FJ, Ahmad F, et al. Efficacy of Mycobacterium indicus pranii immunotherapy as an adjunct to chemotherapy for tuberculosis and underlying immune responses in the lung. PLoS One. 2012;7:e39215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ordway DJ, Shanley CA, Caraway ML, et al. Evaluation of standard chemotherapy in the guinea pig model of tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:1820–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rawat KD, Chahar M, Reddy PV, et al. Expression of CXCL10 (IP-10) and CXCL11 (I-TAC) chemokines during Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection and immunoprophylaxis with Mycobacterium indicus pranii (Mw) in guinea pig. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;13:11–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gupta A, Ahmad FJ, Ahmad F, et al. Protective efficacy of Mycobacterium indicus pranii against tuberculosis and underlying local lung immune responses in guinea pig model. Vaccine. 2012;30:6198–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    von Reyn CF, Mtei L, Arbeit RD, et al. Prevention of tuberculosis in Bacille Calmette-Guerin-primed, HIV-infected adults boosted with an inactivated whole-cell mycobacterial vaccine. AIDS. 2012;24:675–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Orme IM. The mouse as a useful model of tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2003;83:112–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rhoades ER, Frank AA, Orme IM. Progression of chronic pulmonary tuberculosis in mice aerogenically infected with virulent Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Tuber Lung Dis. 1997;78:57–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Turner OC, Basaraba RJ, Frank AA, Orme IM. Granuloma formation in mouse and guinea pig models of experimental tuberculosis. In: Boros DL, editor. Granulomatous infections and inflammation: cellular and molecular mechanisms. Washington DC: ASM Press; 2003. p. 65–84.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Driver ER, Ryan GJ, Hoff DR, et al. Evaluation of a mouse model of necrotic granuloma formation using C3HeB/FeJ mice for testing of drugs against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:3181–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kramnik I. Genetic dissection of host resistance to Mycobacterium tuberculosis: the sst1 locus and the Ipr1 gene. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2008;321:123–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pichugin AV, Yan BS, Sloutsky A, Kobzik L, Kramnik I. Dominant role of the sst1 locus in pathogenesis of necrotizing lung granulomas during chronic tuberculosis infection and reactivation in genetically resistant hosts. Am J Pathol. 2009;174:2190–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Basaraba RJ, Orme IM. Pulmonary tuberculosis in the guinea pig. In: Leong FY, Dartois V, Dick T, editors. A color Atlas of comparative pathology of pulmonary tuberculosis. Baton Rouge: CRC Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Basaraba RJ. Experimental tuberculosis: the role of comparative pathology in the discovery of improved tuberculosis treatment strategies. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2008;88(Suppl 1):S35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ordway DJ, Orme IM. Animal models of mycobacteria infection. Curr Protoc Immunol. Chapter 19: Unit 19 5.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hoff DR, Ryan GJ, Driver ER, et al. Location of intra- and extracellular M. tuberculosis populations in lungs of mice and guinea pigs during disease progression and after drug treatment. PLoS One. 2011;6:e17550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ryan GJ, Hoff DR, Driver ER, et al. Multiple M. tuberculosis phenotypes in mouse and guinea pig lung tissue revealed by a dual-staining approach. PLoS One. 2010;5:e11108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Barry CE 3rd, Boshoff HI, Dartois V, et al. The spectrum of latent tuberculosis: rethinking the biology and intervention strategies. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7:845–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Orme M. The latent tuberculosis bacillus (I’ll let you know if I ever meet one). Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2001;5:589–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lin PL, Rodgers M, Smith L, et al. Quantitative comparison of active and latent tuberculosis in the cynomolgus macaque model. Infect Immun. 2009;77:4631–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sharpe SA, McShane H, Dennis MJ, et al. Establishment of an aerosol challenge model of tuberculosis in rhesus macaques and an evaluation of endpoints for vaccine testing. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010;17:1170–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Williams A, Hall Y, Orme IM. Evaluation of new vaccines for tuberculosis in the guinea pig model. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2009;89:389–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Checkley AM, McShane H. Tuberculosis vaccines: progress and challenges. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2011;32:601–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Comas I, Chakravartti J, Small PM, et al. Human T cell epitopes of Mycobacterium tuberculosis are evolutionarily hyperconserved. Nat Genet. 2010;42:498–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    McShane H, Jacobs WR, Fine PE, et al. BCG: myths, realities, and the need for alternative vaccine strategies. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2012;92:283–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Microbiology, Immunology and PathologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations