Comparison of intramuscular and intradermal applications of hepatitis B vaccine in hemodialysis patients

Efficacy of Needle-Less Intradermal Vaccination against Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus

To prevent diarrhea in suckling piglets infected by porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) vaccines are administered mainly through intramuscular (IM) or oral routes. We found that growing pigs vaccinated with an inactivated PEDV vaccine via the intradermal (ID) route had higher neutralizing antibody titers and cytokine (IFN-γ, IL-4, and IL-10) levels than non-vaccinated pigs. In addition, suckling piglets acquired lactogenic immunity from pregnant sows inoculated with an ID PED vaccine. We evaluated the efficacy of vaccination via this route, along with subsequent protection against virulent PEDV. At six days post-challenge, the survival rate of suckling piglets exposed to virulent PEDV was 70% for the ID group and 0% for the mock group (no vaccine). At necropsy, villi length in the duodenum and ileum of piglets with lactogenic immunity provided by ID-vaccinated sows proved to be significant (p < 0.05) when compared with those in piglets from mock group sows. Thus, vaccination using an inactivated PED vaccine via the ID route provides partial protection against infection by virulent PEDV.

Fractional dose of intradermal compared to intramuscular and subcutaneous vaccination - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vaccine supply shortages are of global concern. We hypothesise that intradermal (ID) immunisation as an alternative to standard routes might augment vaccine supply utilisation without loss of vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if: licensed, currently available vaccines were used; fractional dose of ID was compared to IM or SC immunisation; primary immunisation schedules were evaluated; immunogenicity, safety data and/or cost were reported. We calculated risk differences (RD). Studies were included in meta-analysis if: a pre-defined immune correlate of protection was assessed; WHO-recommend schedules and antigen doses were used in the control group; the same schedule was applied to both ID and control groups (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020151725).

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 5,873 articles, of which 156 articles were included; covering 12 vaccines. Non-inferiority of immunogenicity with 20-60% of antigen used with ID vaccines was demonstrated for influenza (H1N1: RD -0·01; 95% CI -0·02, 0·01; I2 = 55%, H2N3: RD 0·00; 95% CI -0·01, 0·01; I2 = 0%, B: RD -0·00; 95% CI -0·02, 0·01; I2 = 72%), rabies (RD 0·00; 95% CI -0·02, 0·02; I2 = 0%), and hepatitis B vaccines (RD -0·01; 95% CI -0·04, 0·02; I2 = 20%). Clinical trials on the remaining vaccines yielded promising results, but are scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potential for inoculum/antigen dose-reduction by using ID immunisation as compared to standard routes of administration for some vaccines (e.g. influenza, rabies). When suitable, vaccine trials should include an ID arm.

Intradermal vs intramuscular vaccine against hepatitis B infection in dialysis patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Chronic dialysis patients are at risk of contracting hepatitis B virus infection and have a diminished immune response to hepatitis B virus vaccine. Recent reports support intradermal administration of hepatitis B virus vaccine in patients on regular dialysis but the efficacy and safety of this approach remain unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials to compare seroprotection achieved by intradermal vs intramuscular hepatitis B vaccine, in patients on maintenance dialysis. Meta-analysis of data from 718 adults (14 trials) on long-term dialysis demonstrated that intramuscular hepatitis B vaccination was less likely to achieve seroprotection than intradermal vaccination, the pooled odds ratio was 0.454 (95% CI, 0.3; 0.67), P = 0.001. The test of study heterogeneity was not significant. This difference did not persist during follow-up (6-60 months after completing vaccine schedule), the pooled odds ratio being 0.718 (95% CI, 0.36; 1.47), NS. Some evidence of significant heterogeneity including publication bias was present but stratified analysis in various subgroups showed that this issue did not meaningfully change our results. Intradermal hepatitis B vaccine was safe and well tolerated. We conclude that intradermal hepatitis B vaccine induces a superior response rate compared to intramuscular route at completion of vaccine cycle, despite a lower vaccine dose. No significant advantage was found over longer follow-up. It remains unclear whether the higher seroprotection rate achieved with intradermal route translates into a lower frequency of de novo hepatitis B among patients on maintenance dialysis.

Cutaneous delivery of prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines: historical perspective and future outlook

The skin has long been recognized as an attractive target for vaccine administration. A number of clinical studies have tested the epidermal and dermal routes of delivery using a variety of vaccines over the years. In many cases, cutaneous administration has been associated with immunological benefits, such as the induction of greater immune responses compared with those elicited by conventional routes of delivery. Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that such benefits may be particularly important for certain higher-risk populations, such as the elderly, the immunocompromised and cancer patients. Despite the potential advantages of vaccination via the skin, results have sometimes been conflicting and the full benefits of this approach have not been fully realized, partly due to the lack of delivery devices that accurately and reproducibly administer vaccines to the skin. The 5-year outlook, however, appears quite promising as new cutaneous delivery systems advance through clinical trials and become available for more widespread clinical and commercial use.

Phase I dose-escalation study of a monovalent heat shock protein 70-herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) peptide-based vaccine designed to prime or boost CD8 T-cell responses in HSV-naïve and HSV-2-infected subjects

This was a phase I study to assess the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of escalating doses of AG-702, a noncovalent complex of an HLA A*0201-restricted epitope in the glycoprotein B protein of herpes simplex virus type 2 (gB2) and truncated human constitutive heat shock protein 70. Similar vaccines have been immunogenic in animals. Three injections of 10 to 250 mug were administered intradermally to HLA A*0201-bearing subjects who were either herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2)-infected or HSV uninfected. Sixty-two participants received the vaccine, 60 completed the protocol, and T-cell data were accrued for 56 subjects. The vaccine was safe and well tolerated. New or boosted responses to the HSV-2 CD8 epitope were not detected. Baseline responses to an epitope in virion proteins 13/14 were higher than responses to the gB2 epitope. A heat shock protein vaccine with an HSV-2 peptide appears to be safe at the doses studied in healthy adults with or without HSV infection. Modifications of the dose, adjuvant, route, schedule, or HSV antigen may be required to improve responses.