Sanofi’s dengue vaccine has the field asking hard questions
The fallout of Sanofi’s dengue vaccine debacle has researchers scrambling to rationalize whether competitor products will fall afoul of the same effects, and whether other, related fields should change course. The early upshot is that while NIH’s dengue candidate is likely on safer ground, and specific precautionary measures could avert problems, there’s concern the Zika field won’t learn the lessons.
On Nov. 29, Sanofi announced that long-term studies of its Dengvaxia vaccine confirmed the vaccine exacerbated dengue infection in some dengue-naïve or seronegative children instead of protecting them.
The company maintains that Dengvaxia still provides benefit in patients who have previously been infected with the virus, and in children over nine years old regardless of prior exposure. According to Sanofi spokesperson Ashleigh Koss, “Dengvaxia provides protection to 81.9% of people with prior dengue infection and there is short-term protection in seronegatives (52.3%) documented for up to 25 months.”
Sanofi has asked national regulatory agencies for a label change that warns doctors to make an independent assessment of the risk to benefit ratio before vaccinating any seronegative patients.
The problems aren’t a complete surprise given the known biology of dengue, in which a second infection is often more serious than the first. The prevailing theory is that this is due to a phenomenon dubbed antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in which antibodies from a first infection enhance the chances on a subsequent exposure that the virus will enter host cells and cause an infection (see “ADE Doesn’t Aid”).
Figure: ADE doesn’t aid
Phase III data