Title |
Inactivated poliovirus type 2 vaccine delivered to rat skin via high density microprojection array elicits potent neutralising antibody responses
|
---|---|
Published in |
Scientific Reports, February 2016
|
DOI | 10.1038/srep22094 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
David A. Muller, Frances E. Pearson, Germain J.P. Fernando, Christiana Agyei-Yeboah, Nick S. Owens, Simon R. Corrie, Michael L. Crichton, Jonathan C.J. Wei, William C. Weldon, M. Steven Oberste, Paul R. Young, Mark A. F. Kendall |
Abstract |
Polio eradication is progressing rapidly, and the live attenuated Sabin strains in the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) are being removed sequentially, starting with type 2 in April 2016. For risk mitigation, countries are introducing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into routine vaccination programs. After April 2016, monovalent type 2 OPV will be available for type 2 outbreak control. Because the current IPV is not suitable for house-to-house vaccination campaigns (the intramuscular injections require health professionals), we developed a high-density microprojection array, the Nanopatch, delivered monovalent type 2 IPV (IPV2) vaccine to the skin. To assess the immunogenicity of the Nanopatch, we performed a dose-matched study in rats, comparing the immunogenicity of IPV2 delivered by intramuscular injection or Nanopatch immunisation. A single dose of 0.2 D-antigen units of IPV2 elicited protective levels of poliovirus antibodies in 100% of animals. However, animals receiving IPV2 by IM required at least 3 immunisations to reach the same neutralising antibody titres. This level of dose reduction (1/40th of a full dose) is unprecedented for poliovirus vaccine delivery. The ease of administration coupled with the dose reduction observed in this study points to the Nanopatch as a potential tool for facilitating inexpensive IPV for mass vaccination campaigns. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 2 | 29% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
India | 1 | 14% |
Australia | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
India | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
Other | 2 | 6% |
Other | 7 | 19% |
Unknown | 9 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 17% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 14% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
Engineering | 3 | 8% |
Other | 4 | 11% |
Unknown | 11 | 31% |