4.8 Article

Clinical study and stability assessment of a novel transcutaneous influenza vaccination using a dissolving microneedle patch

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 50-58

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.04.007

关键词

Drug delivery; Hyaluronic acid; Immune response; ELISA

资金

  1. Program for Promotion of Fundamental Studies in Health Sciences of the National Institute of Biomedical Innovation (NIBIO) [08-17]
  2. Health Labour Sciences Research Grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [KH23AC0040]
  3. JSPS KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [24390041, 23659079]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23659079] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transcutaneous immunization (TCI) is an attractive vaccination method compared with conventional injectable vaccines because it is easier to administer without pain. We developed a dissolving microneedle patch (MicroHyala, MH) made of hyaluronic acid and showed that transcutaneous vaccination using MH induced a strong immune response against various antigens in mice. In the present study, we investigated the clinical safety and efficacy of a novel transcutaneous influenza vaccine using MH (flu-MH), which contains trivalent influenza hemagglutinins (15 mu g each). Subjects of the TCI group were treated transcutaneously with flu-MH, and were compared with subjects who received subcutaneous injections of a solution containing 15 mu g of each influenza antigen (SCI group). No severe local or systemic adverse events were detected in either group and immune responses against A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 strains were induced equally in the TCI and SCI groups. Moreover, the efficacy of the vaccine against the B strain in the TCI group was stronger than that in the SCI group. Influenza vaccination using MH is promising for practical use as an easy and effective method to replace conventional injections systems. (C) 2015 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

4.8
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