Intranasal immunization against influenza virus using polymeric particles

Lemoine, D.; Deschuyteneer, M; Hogge, F; Préat, Véronique

doi:10.1163/156856299x00892

Cited by 25 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Carr et al showed that polystyrene microparticles with a diameter of 1 µm can adhere to NALT and improve particle uptake by intranasal administration [99]. Lemoine et al noted that uptake of polymeric particles by NALT appeared to be crucial for enhancement in the immune response [101]. In their study, nasally administered PLGA particles with a diameter of 220 nm or 8 µm did not reach the NALT in mice, and consequently the nasal wash IgA and serum IgG levels were not enhanced compared to soluble antigen.…”

Section: Mucosal Vaccine Delivery Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mucosal vaccine delivery: Current state and a pediatric perspective

Shakya

Chowdhury

Tao

et al. 2016

Journal of Controlled Release

127

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most childhood infections occur via the mucosal surfaces, however, parenterally delivered vaccines are unable to induce protective immunity at these surfaces. In contrast, delivery of vaccines via the mucosal routes can allow antigens to interact with the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) to induce both mucosal and systemic immunity. The induced mucosal immunity can neutralize the pathogen on the mucosal surface before it can cause infection. In addition to reinforcing the defense at mucosal surfaces, mucosal vaccination is also expected to be needle-free, which can eliminate pain and the fear of vaccination. Thus, mucosal vaccination is highly appealing, especially for the pediatric population. However, vaccine delivery across mucosal surfaces is challenging because of the different barriers that naturally exist at the various mucosal surfaces to keep the pathogens out. There have been significant developments in delivery systems for mucosal vaccination. In this review we provide an introduction to the MALT, highlight barriers to vaccine delivery at different mucosal surfaces, discuss different approaches that have been investigated for vaccine delivery across mucosal surfaces, and concludes with an assessment of perspectives for mucosal vaccination in the context of the pediatric population.

show abstract

Section: Mucosal Vaccine Delivery Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mucosal vaccine delivery: Current state and a pediatric perspective

Shakya

Chowdhury

Tao

et al. 2016

Journal of Controlled Release

127

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In both mucosal and parenteral vaccination approaches, although NPs delivery enhanced Ab-mediated immune responses, at least one booster vaccination was required to generate significantly higher amounts of antibody responses. Previously, it has been reported that nasal vaccination of mice with influenza encapsulated in PLGA NPs without surface modification induced lower IgA in nasal washes due to rapid clearance of the particles from the nasal mucosa [ 54 ]. Moreover, mucosal delivery (via aerosol, intranasal and pulmonary routes) of inactivated AIV vaccines combined with conventional and molecular adjuvants failed to induce mucosal IgA in chickens [ 55 – 57 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of immunogenicity of avian influenza antigens encapsulated in PLGA nanoparticles following mucosal and subcutaneous delivery in chickens

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mucosal vaccine delivery systems have paramount importance for the induction of mucosal antibody responses. Two studies were conducted to evaluate immunogenicity of inactivated AIV antigens encapsulated in poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticles (NPs). In the first study, seven groups of specific pathogen free (SPF) layer-type chickens were immunized subcutaneously at 7-days of age with different vaccine formulations followed by booster vaccinations two weeks later. Immune responses were profiled by measuring antibody (Ab) responses in sera and lachrymal secretions of vaccinated chickens. The results indicated that inactivated AIV and CpG ODN co-encapsulated in PLGA NPs (2x NanoAI+CpG) produced higher amounts of hemagglutination inhibiting antibodies compared to a group vaccinated with non-adjuvanted AIV encapsulated in PLGA NPs (NanoAI). The tested adjuvanted NPs-based vaccine (2x NanoAI+CpG) resulted in higher IgG responses in the sera and lachrymal secretions at weeks 3, 4 and 5 post-vaccination when immunized subcutaneously. The incorporation of CpG ODN led to an increase in Ab-mediated responses and was found useful to be included both in the prime and booster vaccinations. In the second study, the ability of chitosan and mannan coated PLGA NPs that encapsulated AIV and CpG ODN was evaluated for inducing antibody responses when delivered via nasal and ocular routes in one-week-old SPF layer-type chickens. These PLGA NPs-based and surface modified formulations induced robust AIV-specific antibody responses in sera and lachrymal secretions. Chitosan coated PLGA NPs resulted in the production of large quantities of lachrymal IgA and IgG compared to mannan coated NPs, which also induced detectable amounts of IgA in addition to the induction of IgG in lachrymal secretions. In both mucosal and subcutaneous vaccination approaches, although NPs delivery enhanced Ab-mediated immunity, one booster vaccination was required to generate significant amount of Abs. These results highlight the potential of NPs-based AIV antigens for promoting the induction of both systemic and mucosal immune responses against respiratory pathogens.

show abstract

“…In the studies cited, various levels of immune responses were induced. Vila et al 41 studied nasal immunization with tetanus toxoid following encapsulation and administration in the forms of PEG-coated polylactic acid nanospheres, chitosan-coated polylactic-glycolic acid nanospheres and chitosan nanospheres. They observed that PEG-coated nanospheres induced higher levels of tetanus toxoid in the blood compared to chitosan-coated nanospheres.…”

Section: Vaccines and Dnamentioning

confidence: 99%

Nasoadhesive Drug Delivery: A Review

Gupta¹

2012

J. Drug Delivery Ther.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nasal route has been demonstrated as being a possible alternative to the intravenous route for the systemic delivery of drugs. It has been demonstrated that low absorption of drugs can be enhanced by using absorption enhancers or increasing the drug residence time in the nasal cavity, by using mucoadhesive polymers, which serve both functions. The factors that influence mucoadhesiveness of a polymer include physiological factors polymer related factors and environmental factors are briefly discussed in present review. Applications of nasoadhesive drug delivery of small organic molecules, antibiotics, proteins, and vaccines are discussed. Furthermore, nasal dosage forms and their effect on drug delivery also discussed.

show abstract

Intranasal immunization against influenza virus using polymeric particles

Cited by 25 publications

References 40 publications

Mucosal vaccine delivery: Current state and a pediatric perspective

Mucosal vaccine delivery: Current state and a pediatric perspective

Characterization of immunogenicity of avian influenza antigens encapsulated in PLGA nanoparticles following mucosal and subcutaneous delivery in chickens

Nasoadhesive Drug Delivery: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About