4.5 Article

Safety and immunogenicity of a novel nanoemulsion mucosal adjuvant W805EC combined with approved seasonal influenza antigens

期刊

VACCINE
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 307-316

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.094

关键词

Mucosal; Influenza; Trivalent; Inactivated; Vaccine; Safety; Tolerability; Immunogenicity; Nanoemulsion; Nanoemulsion adjuvant; Nanodroplet; Nanotechnology; Adjuvant; Nasal; Intranasal; W(80)5EC; Clinical trial; Human

资金

  1. NanoBio Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Improving the systemic and mucosal immune response following intranasal vaccination could enhance disease protection against respiratory pathogens. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of a novel nanoemulsion mucosal adjuvant W(80)5EC combined with approved seasonal influenza antigens. Methods: This was a first-in-human Phase I study in 199 healthy adult volunteers randomized to receive a single intranasal administration of 5%, 10%, 15% or 20% W(80)5EC, combined with 4 or 10 mu g strain-specific Fluzone (R) HA, compared with intranasal PBS, intranasal Fluzone (R), or 15 ug strain-specific intramuscular Fluzone (R). Safety was evaluated by physical examination, laboratory parameters, symptom diaries, and adverse event reports. Serum HAI titers and nasal wash IgA were assessed at baseline as well as 28 and 60 days after vaccination. Results: W(80)5EC adjuvant combined with seasonal influenza antigens was well tolerated without safety concerns or significant adverse events. The highest dose of 20% W(80)5EC combined with 10 mu g strain-specific HA elicited clinically meaningful systemic immunity based on increases in serum HAI GMT and >= 70% seroprotection for all 3 influenza strains, as well as a rise in antigen-specific IgA in nasal wash specimens. Conclusions: W(80)5EC adjuvant was safe and well tolerated in healthy adult volunteers and elicited both systemic and mucosal immunity following a single intranasal vaccination. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据