Article

Increasing the time of exposure to aerosol measles vaccine elicits an immune response equivalent to that seen in 9-month-old Mexican children given the same dose subcutaneously

Facultad de Medicina, Departamento de Medicina Experimental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 5.78). 08/2011; 204(3):426-32. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir278
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A 30-second aerosol measles vaccination successfully primes children 12 months of age and older but is poorly immunogenic when given to 9-month-old children. We examined the immune responses when increasing the duration to aerosol exposure in 9-month-olds.
One hundred and thirteen healthy 9-month-old children from Mexico City were enrolled; 58 received aerosol EZ measles vaccine for 2.5 minutes and 55 subcutaneously. Measles-specific neutralizing antibodies and cellular responses were measured before and at 3 and 6 months postimmunization.
Adaptive immunity was induced in 97% after aerosol and 98% after subcutaneous administration. Seroconversion rates and GMCs were 95% and 373 mIU/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 441-843) following aerosol vaccination and 91% and 306 mIU/mL (95% CI, 367-597) after subcutaneous administration at 3 months. The percentage of children with a measles-specific stimulation index ≥3 was 45% and 60% in the aerosol versus 55% and 59% in the subcutaneous group at 3 and 6 months, respectively. CD8 memory cell frequencies were higher in the aerosol group at 3 months compared with the subcutaneous group. Adverse reactions were comparable in both groups.
Increasing exposure time to aerosol measles vaccine elicits immune responses that are comparable to those seen when an equivalent dose is administered by the subcutaneous route in 9-month-old infants.

0 Followers
 · 
91 Views
  • Source
    • "Other investigators studied 1-year-old children [8] and 9-month-old infants, finding a lower serological response to the Edmonston Zagreb (EZ) measles strain when applied in aerosol form than when administered by injection [9]. These authors also recently reported that an increase in the exposure time to the aerosolized vaccine was associated with an elevated humoral and cellular response in children aged 9 months [10]. In one study, rubella monovalent vaccine (RA 27/3) was administered either by aerosol or by injection to children 6–7 years of age; the difference in the seroresponses to the aerosolized vaccine (61.5%) or the injection (44.0%) was not statistically significant. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Importance: Aerosol immunization may be a useful tool to reach and sustain the elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome. We compared booster seroresponses to aerosolized or injected MMR vaccines containing different strains of measles (Attenuvax or Edmonston-Zagreb) and mumps (Jeryl-Lynn or Leningrad-Zagreb). Objective: To assess the safety and immunogenicity of two MMR: Vaccines administered by aerosol. Methods: A randomized and controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and booster responses to the MMR SII (Serum Institute of India) and MMR II (Merck Sharp & Dhome) vaccines, both of which were administered by aerosol (ae) or injection (inj) to Mexican children aged 6-7 years in elementary schools. The seroresponses were evaluated by PRN (measles) and ELISA (rubella and mumps). Adverse events were followed-up for 28 days after the immunization. Results: Two hundred and fifty-three of 260 children completed the one-month follow-up. All participants reached protective seropositivity for measles and rubella after immunization, and 98.3 to 100% reached protective seropositivity for mumps (p= 0.552). The proportions of the seroresponses (a 2-fold rise from the baseline antibody titers) to measles were 38.3% for MMR SII (ae), 31.3% for MMR II (ae), 37.5% for MMR SII (inj), and 44.6% for MMR II (inj) (p= 0.483). The seroresponses for rubella were 26.7% for MMR SII (ae), 31.3% for MMR II (ae), 46.9% for MMR SII (inj), and 40.0% for MMR II (inj) (p= 0.086). The seroresponse to mumps were 31.7% for MMR SII (ae), 25.0% for MMR II (ae), 48.4% for MMR SII (inj), and 53.9% for MMR II (inj) (p= 0.002). The difference in the seroresponse of a 4-fold rise from the baseline antibody titers was not statistically significant. Only mild adverse events were noted. Conclusion: Aerosolized vaccines were as safe and as immunogenic as injected vaccines. Protocol registration: CMN 2010-005 (National Regulatory Authority).
    Vaccine 05/2014; 32(29). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.031 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review focuses on new concepts important for the understanding of the pathogenesis of measles virus. First the requirement for specific entry receptors restricts the cell types that measles can enter during the initial stages of infection in the human host. Recently, the paradigm for measles has shifted from an epithelial infection similar to that caused in the respiratory tract by other members of the paramyxoviruses to one which displays more similarity to the infection of the immune system by HIV-1, though the route of infection is different. Secondly we review the role of host proteins that support viral replication as well as those that modify the cellular environment in order to promote measles virus replication. The role of specific virus proteins in the anti-antiviral response is also reviewed. Measles virus counteracts all pathways known to induce interferon synthesis as well as signalling by interferons, exemplifying the importance of these in the virulence/attenuation of the virus. We conclude that only studies in relevant animal model systems or humans or in vitro or ex vivo studies of relevant cell types and tissues will bring us closer to an understanding of the pathogenesis of the virus, factors that have often been overlooked in past studies.
    Virus Research 12/2011; 162(1-2):47-62. DOI:10.1016/j.virusres.2011.09.021 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many serious infectious diseases occur early in life; efficacious vaccination of neonates has been a longstanding goal in both human and veterinary medicine. Efforts to immunize in the first weeks of life, in various species, have had limited success in general. This has been attributed to a combination of immaturity of the neonatal immune system and interference by maternal antibodies. Most studies of neonatal immune responsiveness have been carried out in neonatal mice, or by examination of cellular components of human umbilical cord blood. Both approaches have their limitations. The current review describes factors, including corticosteroids, complement proteins, cytokines, maternal lymphocytes and antibodies, which may influence immune responses of neonates, comparing data from studies of domestic animals and humans. Neonates are highly dependent on passive (maternal) antibodies for protection against a wide range of pathogens. These maternal antibodies have been noted to interfere with active immune responses to many, but not all, vaccines. Various theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, including epitope masking, clearance of immune complexes and FcγRII mediated regulation of B cells. Remarkably, many studies examining the effects of passive antibodies on immune responses of adults, have demonstrated immune enhancing effects. The evidence for enhancing and suppressive effects of passive antibodies on antigen uptake, processing and regulation of lymphocyte responses is reviewed. Since maternal antibodies (as present in neonates) differ in subisotypes and affinity from the passive antibodies often used in experimental systems, here is a need for better experimental models investigating the effects of bona fide maternal antibodies on immune responses of neonates (not adult surrogates). Vaccines can be optimized for use in neonates - by making better use of existing vaccine technologies and by harnessing the potential of recent immunological and technological advances.
    Vaccine 12/2011; 30(9):1541-59. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.12.047 · 3.49 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from