With the exception of alum, emulsion-based vaccine adjuvants have been administered to far more people than any other adjuvant, especially since the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. The number of clinical safety and immunogenicity evaluations of vaccines containing emulsion adjuvants has correspondingly mushroomed. In this review, the authors introduce emulsion adjuvant composition and history before detailing the most recent findings from clinical and postmarketing data regarding the effects of emulsion adjuvants on vaccine immunogenicity and safety, with emphasis on the most widely distributed emulsion adjuvants, MF59® and AS03. The authors also present a summary of other emulsion adjuvants in clinical development and indicate promising avenues for future emulsion-based adjuvant development. Overall, emulsion adjuvants have demonstrated potent adjuvant activity across a number of disease indications along with acceptable safety profiles.
"Moreover, differences in vaccine antigen structures may necessitate adjuvant formulation development to optimize antigen-adjuvant compatibility and immunogenicity . We have developed various clinical and preclinical nanoformulations of the synthetic TLR4 ligand glucopyranosyl lipid adjuvant (GLA) [2,4-6]. Since GLA is hydrophobic, appropriate formulation is critical to stably disperse the molecule in aqueous solution. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Nanosuspensions are an important class of delivery system for vaccine adjuvants and drugs. Previously, we developed a nanosuspension consisting of the synthetic TLR4 ligand glucopyranosyl lipid adjuvant (GLA) and dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine (DPPC). This nanosuspension is a clinical vaccine adjuvant known as GLA-AF. We examined the effects of DPPC supplier, buffer composition, and manufacturing process on GLA-AF physicochemical and biological activity characteristics.
DPPC from different suppliers had minimal influence on physicochemical and biological effects. In general, buffered compositions resulted in less particle size stability compared to unbuffered GLA-AF. Microfluidization resulted in rapid particle size reduction after only a few passes, and 20,000 or 30,000 psi processing pressures were more effective at reducing particle size and recovering the active component than 10,000 psi. Sonicated and microfluidized batches maintained good particle size and chemical stability over 6 months, without significantly altering in vitro or in vivo bioactivity of GLA-AF when combined with a recombinant malaria vaccine antigen.
Microfluidization, compared to water bath sonication, may be an effective manufacturing process to improve the scalability and reproducibility of GLA-AF as it advances further in the clinical development pathway. Various sources of DPPC are suitable to manufacture GLA-AF, but buffered compositions of GLA-AF do not appear to offer stability advantages over the unbuffered composition.
Journal of Nanobiotechnology 12/2013; 11(1):43. DOI:10.1186/1477-3155-11-43 · 4.12 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Vaccination via skin often induces stronger immune responses than via muscle. This, in line with potential needle-free, painless delivery, makes skin a very attractive site for immunization. Yet, despite decades of effort, effective skin delivery is still in its infant stage and safe and potent adjuvants for skin vaccination remain largely undefined. We have shown that laser technologies including both fractional and non-fractional lasers can greatly augment vaccine-induced immune response without incurring any significant local and systemic side effects. Laser illumination at specific settings can accelerate the motility of antigen-presenting cells or trigger release of 'danger' signals stimulating the immune system. Moreover, several other groups including the authors explore laser technologies for needle-free transcutaneous vaccine delivery. As these laser-mediated resurfacing technologies are convenient, safe and cost-effective, their new applications in vaccination warrant clinical studies in the very near future.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.