PDA

View Full Version : The future of vaccines



Nirvana
16-07-10, 06:02 AM
http://www.grandchallenges.org/ImproveVaccines/Challenges/NeedleFreeDelivery/Pages/NasalSpray.aspx

PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR:

Dr. James R. Baker, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States - USNanoemulsions as Adjuvants for Nasal Spray Vaccines

Nanoemulsions as Adjuvants for Nasal Spray Vaccines





http://www.grandchallenges.org/SiteCollectionImages/img_generic_project.jpgMost childhood vaccines are delivered through injection. This increases the risk that HIV, hepatitis, and other serious diseases may be transmitted by unsterile syringes and needles. Moreover, injecting vaccines can be a complex process, and used syringes and needles create a major waste disposal problem. Vaccines that can be delivered without needles have the potential to be simpler to administer and less prone to spreading infection. Some may have additional advantages over traditional vaccines, such as the ability to remain stable over a wide temperature range and to require fewer doses.

Dr. Baker's team is developing a new way of preparing vaccines so that they can be given as nasal drops. These nanoemulsion (NE)-based vaccines use non-toxic lipid droplets less than 200 nanometers in diameter that are absorbed through the mucosal surfaces of the nostrils. They can be easily produced using an extrusion process available worldwide and are antimicrobial, eliminating the need for preservatives or refrigeration. The team is performing proof-of-concept, feasibility, and toxicology studies for a nanoemulsion-based vaccine for hepatitis B surface antigen.

In addition the team continues to study the immunogenicity of the vaccine product in rats and guinea pigs. They will study the product in monkeys using the same spray device that will be used in the planned clinical trials. Investigators expect to hold a pre-investigational new drug application meeting (Pre-IND) with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration soon. The team is investigating facilities and laboratories where they will perform the GLP toxicology and GMP stability studies. Upon completion of GLP toxicology studies, investigators plan to move into a Phase I clinical trial located in the United States and Senegal.

Research Objectives:

Evaluating the induction of protective immunity in rodents and primates to ensure that the unique respiratory physiology of primates does not impose a barrier


Conducting Phase I human feasibility studies in the United States and Dakar, Senegal


BACK TO THE TOP (http://www.grandchallenges.org/ImproveVaccines/Challenges/NeedleFreeDelivery/Pages/NasalSpray.aspx#top)
Project Progress & Milestones:

In 2005-2006, Dr. Baker's team focused on formulating the vaccine adjuvant, evaluating nasal delivery devices, and demonstrating that the adjuvant, in combination with hepatitis B surface antigen, is immunogenic in mice.


In mice, the immune response to the adjuvant, W805EC, is biased toward a Th1 response. Intramuscular vaccines using alum as an adjuvant, in contrast, are biased toward Th2 response. In addition, the intranasal vaccine shows increased avidity of antibody response compared to the intramuscular vaccine with alum.


Investigators tested the vaccine product for stability at three temperatures – 40°C, 25°C, and 40°C – evaluating particle size, epitope retention, and potency at six weeks, three months, and six months.


At six weeks at all three temperatures, the NE particle size is stable, the HBsAg epitope is intact, and the vaccine product is immunogenic in mice when compared to fresh vaccine product.


At three and six months at 40°C, the NE particle size is stable, the HBsAg epitope is intact and the vaccine product is immunogenic in mice when compared to fresh vaccine product.


At three months at 25°C and 40°C, the HBsAg and NE particle size is stable and the vaccine product immunogenicity in mice is maintained when compared to fresh vaccine product.



At six months at 25°C and 40°C the NE particle size is stable but while immunogenecity is intact at 25°C, there is a decrease in immunogenicity at 40°C storage when compared to fresh vaccine product.


The decision was made to use the rat or guinea pig model in GLP toxicology studies.

Nirvana
16-07-10, 06:04 AM
http://www.nanosight.com/applications/biological-nanoparticles/virus-like-particles-vlps

Virus Like Particles (VLPs)


Virus Like Particles (VLPs) have been designed to overcome the problems associated with certain recombinant protein vaccines. Recombinant protein vaccines may elicit a poor immune response as a result of a poor presentation of the viral antigens to the immune system. This can be overcome to a certain extent through the addition of adjuvants, but perhaps another more attractive option would be to use Virus Like Particles. VLPs are an assembly of viral antigens such that they create a more authentic structure and conformation of the viral antigen.

VLPs have been shown to have significant potential in eliciting a stronger and more lengthy immune response than more traditional recombinant protein vaccines. Measurement of both particle size and state of aggregation as well as particle concentration is vital information in the characterization of such products. The NanoSight technique represents a very attractive option for quantifying and sizing VLPs directly in liquid suspension. The immune response to a preparation of VLPs will be indicative of the particle concentration as well as particle size and state of aggregation. More typical methods of quantification in vaccine development such as infectivity assays and qPCR cannot be used to quantify VLPs because they are (a) non infectious and (b) do not contain DNA ruling out infectivity assays and qPCR respectively.

MinorityView
16-07-10, 09:12 AM
Amusing in a depressing sort of way.

So vaccines delivered with needles are spreading disease? Would be nice if this problem were mentioned to some of the victims: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/04/19/medical-double-standards-in-the-third-world/

and then they admit that recombinant (GMO if anyone missed that gem) protein vaccines elicit a poor immune response, which means that toxic adjuvants have to be added (aluminum, squalene)...

why the f**k should we trust these idiots to get it right in the next round if they've screwed up multiple times and covered up and buried their mistakes?

Momtezuma Tuatara
16-07-10, 04:05 PM
Yeah, I've been following this for a while. The question they should be asking, is what are the consequences of putting ultra miniscule nanoparticles in places they might not normally get?

Oh, I forgot. She'll be right.

Organic Fanatic
16-07-10, 06:01 PM
Nanotechnology scarey stuff it just never ends.

Organic Fanatic
16-07-10, 07:34 PM
If it could be given in drops that would somewhat take away the need for regulatory application of it ie, drops easier to give than an injection by a doctor as don't need specialised people to do it, so could that mean it could become over the counter then it is very scary for our next generations, as it would be used willy nilly. Plus thinking specifically about my own child he could be slipped a few drops (i know that sounds paranoid).

I'm just starting some information collecting on animal vaccines interesting to see that in America animal vaccines don't need to get registered with the FDA national animal drug administration, they are exempt (equivalent to our ACVM) am yet to delve into how/if they are managed by another means.
If the above technology was deemed successful and used in the future it would possibly also transfer over into animal vaccines so would get into our food chain also.

Barefoot
16-07-10, 11:57 PM
Organic fanatic, you have a good point there, it would not break the skin so would not be classed as surgery.

Momtezuma Tuatara
17-07-10, 10:23 AM
they are getting worried about nano stuff in make up, but that's okay, nano in vaccines will be just fine! (sarcasm off.)