Dataset Information

Safety, tolerability of ES16001, a novel varicella zoster virus reactivation inhibitor, in healthy adults.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Herpes zoster (HZ), or shingles, is a clinical syndrome resulting from the reactivation of latent varicella zoster virus (VZV) within the sensory ganglia. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of ES16001 (ethanol extract of Elaeocarpus sylvestris var. ellipticus), a novel inhibitor of varicella zoster virus reactivation in healthy adults.

Method

Single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single and multiple ascending dose (SAD and MAD, respectively) studies were conducted in 20- to 45-year-old healthy adults without chronic disease. In the SAD study (n = 32), subjects randomly received a single oral dose of 240, 480, 960, or 1440 mg ES16001 or a placebo. In the MAD study (n = 16), subjects randomly received once daily doses of 480 or 960 mg ES16001 or a placebo for 5 days. The safety and tolerability of the drug were evaluated by monitoring participants' treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), physical examinations, and clinical laboratory tests.

Results

In the SAD study, 11 adverse reactions were seen in 5 subjects, and in the MAD study, 8 adverse reactions were seen in 6 subjects. All adverse reactions were mild, and no serious adverse reactions occurred. The most common adverse reaction was an increase in alanine aminotransferase (ALT), but all test values were in the clinically non-significant range, and their clinical significance was judged to be small considering the fact that most of the test values returned to normal immediately after the end of drug administration.

Conclusion

ES16001 has good safety and tolerability when administered both once and repeatedly to healthy subjects. Further research is needed to identify any possible drug-induced hepatotoxicity, which appears infrequently. Our findings provide a rationale for further clinical investigations of ES16001 for the prevention of HZ.

Trial registration

CRIS, KCT0006066. Registered 7 April 2021-Retrospectively registered, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/19071 ).

SUBMITTER: Hwang-Bo J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359576 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVaricella zoster virus (VZV) is one of the eight known human herpesviruses. Initial VZV infection results in chickenpox, while viral reactivation following a period of latency manifests as shingles. Separate vaccines exist to protect against both initial infection and subsequent reactivation. Controversy regarding chickenpox vaccination is contentious with most countries not including the vaccine in their childhood immunization schedule due to the hypothesized negative impact on immune-boosting, where VZV reactivation is suppressed through exogenous boosting of VZV antibodies from exposure to natural chickenpox infections.MethodsPopulation-level chickenpox and shingles notifications from Thailand, a country that does not vaccinate against either disease, were previously fitted with mathematical models to estimate rates of VZV transmission and reactivation. Here, multiple chickenpox and shingles vaccination scenarios were simulated and compared to a model lacking any vaccination to analyze the long-term impacts of VZV vaccination.ResultsAs expected, simulations suggested that an introduction of the chickenpox vaccine, at any coverage level, would reduce chickenpox incidence. However, chickenpox vaccine coverage levels above 35% would increase shingles incidence under realistic estimates of shingles coverage with the current length of protective immunity from the vaccine. A trade-off between chickenpox and shingles vaccination coverage was discovered, where mid-level chickenpox coverage levels were identified as the optimal target to minimize total zoster burden. Only in scenarios where shingles vaccine provided lifelong immunity or coverage exceeded current levels could large reductions in both chickenpox and shingles be achieved.ConclusionsThe complicated nature of VZV makes it impossible to select a single vaccination scenario as universal policy. Strategies focused on reducing both chickenpox and shingles incidence, but prioritizing the latter should maximize efforts towards shingles vaccination, while slowly incorporating chickenpox vaccination. Alternatively, countries may wish to minimize VZV complications of both chickenpox and shingles, which would lead to maximizing vaccine coverage levels across both diseases. Balancing the consequences of vaccination to overall health impacts, including understanding the impact of an altered mean age of infection for both chickenpox and shingles, would need to be considered prior to any vaccine introduction.