Open AccessProtective Immunization against Inhalational Anthrax: A Comparison of Minimally Invasive Delivery Platforms
Author(s) -
John A. Mikszta,
Vincent J. Sullivan,
Cheryl H. Dean,
Andrea M. Waterston,
Jason B. Alarcon,
John P. Dekker,
John M. Brittingham,
Juan Huang,
C. Robin Hwang,
Matthew S. Ferriter,
Jingping Ge,
Kevin D. Mar,
Kamal U. Saikh,
Bradley G. Stiles,
Chad J. Roy,
Robert G. Ulrich,
Noel G. Harvey
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
the journal of infectious diseases (online. university of chicago press)/the journal of infectious diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.69
H-Index - 252
eISSN - 1537-6613
pISSN - 0022-1899
DOI - 10.1086/426865
Subject(s) - bacillus anthracis , anthrax vaccines , nasal administration , medicine , biodefense , seroconversion , immunization , immunology , virology , antigen , biology , pathology , antibody , dna vaccination , genetics , bacteria
A new anthrax vaccine under clinical investigation is based on recombinant Bacillus anthracis protective antigen (rPA). Here, we investigated microneedle-based cutaneous and nasal mucosal delivery of rPA in mice and rabbits. In mice, intradermal (id) delivery achieved up to 90% seroconversion after a single dose, compared with 20% after intramuscular (im) injection. Intranasal (inl) delivery of a liquid formulation required 3 doses to achieve responses that were comparable with those achieved via the id or im routes. In rabbits, id delivery provided complete protection against aerosol challenge with anthrax spores; in addition, novel powder formulations administered inl provided complete protection, whereas a liquid formulation provided only partial protection. These results demonstrate, for the first time, that cutaneous or nasal mucosal administration of rPA provides complete protection against inhalational anthrax in rabbits. The novel vaccine/device combinations described here have the potential to improve the efficacy of rPA and other biodefense vaccines.