Comparison of PLA microparticles and alum as adjuvants for H5N1 influenza split vaccine: adjuvanticity evaluation and preliminary action mode analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the adjuvanticity of polymeric particles (new-generation adjuvant) and alum (the traditional and FDA-approved adjuvant) for H5N1 influenza split vaccine, and to investigate respective action mode. METHODS: Vaccine formulations were prepared by incubating lyophilized poly(lactic acid) (PLA) microparticles or alum within antigen solution. Antigen-specific immune responses in mice were evaluated using ELISA, ELISpot, and flow cytometry assay. Adjuvants' action modes were investigated by determining antigen persistence at injection sites, local inflammation response, antigen transport into draining lymph node, and activation of DCs in secondary lymphoid organs (SLOs). RESULTS: Alum promoted antigen-specific humoral immune response. PLA microparticles augmented both humoral immune response and cell-mediated-immunity which might enhance cross-protection of influenza vaccine. With regard to action mode, alum adjuvant functions by improving antigen persistence at injection sites, inducing severe local inflammation, slightly improving antigen transport into draining lymph nodes, and improving the expression of MHC II on DCs in SLOs. PLA microparticles function by slightly improving antigen transport into draining lymph nodes, and promoting the expression of both MHC molecules and co-stimulatory molecules on DCs in SLOs. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the adjuvanticity and side effects (local inflammation) of both adjuvants, we conclude that PLA microparticles are promising alternative adjuvant for H5N1 influenza split vaccine.

Immune protection induced on day 10 following administration of the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The 2009 swine-origin influenza virus (S-OIV) H1N1 pandemic has caused more than 18,000 deaths worldwide. Vaccines against the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza virus are useful for preventing infection and controlling the pandemic. The kinetics of the immune response following vaccination with the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza vaccine need further investigation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 58 volunteers were vaccinated with a 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic influenza monovalent split-virus vaccine (15 µg, single-dose). The sera were collected before Day 0 (pre-vaccination) and on Days 3, 5, 10, 14, 21, 30, 45 and 60 post vaccination. Specific antibody responses induced by the vaccination were analyzed using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). After administration of the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza vaccine, specific and protective antibody response with a major subtype of IgG was sufficiently developed as early as Day 10 (seroprotection rate: 93%). This specific antibody response could maintain for at least 60 days without significant reduction. Antibody response induced by the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza vaccine could not render protection against seasonal H1N1 influenza (seroconversion rate: 3% on Day 21). However, volunteers with higher pre-existing seasonal influenza antibody levels (pre-vaccination HI titer ≥1∶40, Group 1) more easily developed a strong antibody protection effect against the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza vaccine as compared with those showing lower pre-existing seasonal influenza antibody levels (pre-vaccination HI titer <1∶40, Group 2). The titer of the specific antibody against the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza was much higher in Group 1 (geometric mean titer: 146 on Day 21) than that in Group 2 (geometric mean titer: 70 on Day 21). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Recipients could gain sufficient protection as early as 10 days after vaccine administration. The protection could last at least 60 days. Individuals with a stronger pre-existing seasonal influenza antibody response may have a relatively higher potential for developing a stronger humoral immune response after vaccination with the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine.