Can Needle-Free Administration of Vaccines Become the Norm in Global Immunization?

COMMENTARY If vaccines could be administered without needles and syringes (‘sharps’), immunization practice would become safer, more accepted and more suitable for mass use. The author explores the status of technologies that could achieve this aim and the barriers that must be overcome for their implementation. Can needle-free administration of vaccines become the norm in global immunization? Vaccines constitute one of the most cost- lifesaving vaccines between industrial- effective preventive measures against ill- MYRON M. LEVINE ized versus developing countries. ness and death from infectious disease. In developing countries, delivery of Even as modern biotechnology is generating vaccines against immunization would be more efficient and economical if all infections that were previously unpreventable, and is improv- vaccines were temperature stable, required less than three ing existing vaccines, other fundamental changes in vaccines doses to immunize, and could be administered without nee- and immunization are unfolding on the world scene. dles. However, except for the oral polio vaccine, all EPI vac- Increasingly, the vaccines received by children and adults in cines are now given using needle and syringe. This is industrialized countries are distinct from those given in devel- problematic because in developing countries injection safety is oping countries, as are their site of manufacture and popular a notorious problem1,2: improper practices involving nonsterile perceptions of vaccine safety (Table 1). In developing coun- needles and syringes (often reused from one person to another) tries, infections such as measles (which accounts for ∼800,000 cause abscesses and transmit blood-borne pathogens (such as deaths annually) and pertussis remain killers, whereas in many hepatitis B and C and HIV)2. Single-use ‘auto-disable syringes’ http://www.nature.com/naturemedicine industrialized countries, where vaccines have controlled these provide a partial solution by preventing reuse, but generate in- diseases, there is often greater concern over perceived adverse fectious waste that must be properly handled lest it endanger effects of vaccines than over the diseases themselves. bystanders. Although parenteral vaccination accounts for only Nevertheless, three fundamental themes remain in common a fraction of the needles used by health workers, immunization worldwide: first, high immunization coverage of target popula- is held to a higher standard than other uses of needles because tions generally must be attained for maximal public health im- it involves healthy individuals. pact; second, most current vaccines are administered This commentary reviews technologies for needle-free ad- parenterally using a needle and syringe; third, there is a broad ministration of vaccines across mucosal surfaces or through the recognition of the need to find ways to administer vaccines skin, and considers their practicality for use in developing without the use of ‘sharps’ (that is, needles and syringes). countries with current and future vaccines and suitability for low (for example, small health centers) and high workloads Why needle-free immunization is desirable (for example, mass campaigns), as well as the practical, logisti- Concerns about the number of injections that must be given to cal and economic barriers to development and deployment. © Group 2003 Nature Publishing infants and toddlers is driving the development of parenteral combination vaccines. In developed countries, immunization Vaccines delivered through mucosal surfaces without needles or syringes would increase acceptability (and Among the possible mucosal routes (including oral, nasal, rec- therefore compliance) and would enhance occupational safety tal, conjunctival and vaginal) for immunization of humans, for vaccinators and other health providers. This could be par- oral and nasal are practical for all ages and both genders ticularly critical in the future should it become necessary to im- (Fig. 1)3. Specialized microfold (M) cells overlying mucosa-as- munize large populations rapidly en masse in the face of a sociated lymphoid tissues in the intestine and nose constitute pandemic influenza or bioterror emergency. effective portals by which vaccine antigens reach underlying Needle-free immunization is even more critical for develop- inductive sites for immune responses4. Properly formulated, ing countries, where expanded immunization coverage and mucosally administered vaccines can stimulate any relevant the addition of new vaccines could prevent millions of child- type of immune response: secretory IgA (S-IgA), serum hood deaths. Since the mid-1970s, the World Health IgG–neutralizing antibodies (against toxins and viruses) and Organization’s Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) cell-mediated responses (lymphocyte proliferation, cytokine has recommended six basic vaccines for infants in developing production and CD8+ cytotoxic lymphocyte activity). Because countries: diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, whole-cell pertus- they elicit S-IgA, mucosal vaccines are attractive for use sis, bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), and attenuated polio and against pathogens that cause mucosal infection or invade measles; hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) through the mucosa. Some mucosal vaccines, such as Ty21a conjugate (where disease burden indicates) were recom- live oral typhoid vaccine, stimulate long-term protection last- mended subsequently. Developing countries are also increas- ing up to 7 years5. ingly using mass immunization campaigns to drive measles from communities and to curtail meningococcal epidemics. Oral vaccines. Oral polio vaccine sets the standard for ease of The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) administration to individuals of any age. The overall experi- and its associated Vaccine Fund (which was initially capital- ence with licensed oral vaccines, including Ty21a (ref. 5), live ized with $750 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates cholera vaccine strain CVD 103-HgR (ref. 6) and nonliving Foundation and later expanded by other donations to ∼$1.2 cholera vaccines7,8, has been positive, although some prob- billion) are addressing the long delay in the introduction of lems have appeared. In the United States, post-licensure sur- NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 9 • NUMBER 1 • JANUARY 2003 99 COMMENTARY ers vaccine to the nasal mucosa (Fig. 1), is Table 1 Diverging immunization realities under consideration for licensure by the Industrialized countries Developing countries US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on the basis of its safety, immunogenicity Infant combination vaccines Acellular pertussis-based Whole-cell pertussis-based 19,20 Measles vaccine Trivalent MMR Monovalent measles and efficacy . Polio vaccine Inactivated parenteral Live oral Researchers are seeking well-tolerated BCG Uncommon Routine adjuvants to enhance immunological re- Varicella, pneumococcal Increasingly common Not introduced yet sponses to nonliving vaccines adminis- conjugate tered through mucosal surfaces. Cholera Immunization schedule Routine Uncommon toxin (CT) and heat-labile enterotoxin (LT) extends to year 2 of life of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli are pow- Source of vaccine Industrialized country Mostly developing country erful adjuvants that enhance local S-IgA manufacturers manufacturers Use of multidose vials Minority of vaccine used Majority of vaccine used and serum antibody responses to coadmin- Public perception Concerns over vaccine safety Fear of disease istered soluble or particulate antigens. Although they are unacceptable as human In contrast to the situation summarized here, as recently as the mid-1980s there was little difference in the array µ of vaccines given to infants in the industrialized and developing world. In addition, a notable proportion of vac- oral adjuvants, in that as little as 5.0 g cines procured by UNICEF for developing countries were from manufacturers in industrialized countries (mainly causes severe diarrhea21, they have been ex- European). BCG, bacillus Calmette-Guerin; MMR, measles-mumps-rubella. plored for nasal use. LT adjuvant was in- corporated in a nasal, nonliving influenza veillance detected an uncommon association between tetrava- vaccine used in Europe22. Disappointingly, however, post- lent reassortant rhesus rotavirus vaccine and intestinal intus- licensure surveillance identified a possible association with susception9, resulting in its withdrawal from the market. New cases of Bell’s palsy, leading to withdrawal of the vaccine from rotavirus, and perhaps other oral infant vaccines, must ad- the market. To increase safety, mutant LT and CT molecules http://www.nature.com/naturemedicine dress the risk of intussusception through large clinical trials have been modified to reduce toxicity but retain adjuvanticity before licensure. It has also been observed that some live oral for antigens coadministered intranasally23,24. Safety concerns vaccines are less immunogenic in individuals in developing remain, because in some species ganglioside-binding properties countries than in industrialized states10–12. Contributing influ- of mutant LT and CT allow uptake by nasal olfactory nerve ences include small-bowel bacterial overgrowth13, intestinal fibers and retrograde transport to the olfactory lobes of the helminths14 and competing enteric viruses. brain25. Because it is not known whether this occurs in humans Unfortunately, there is little clinical experience with plat- and what consequences might result,

Load more