The nasal route is attractive for the delivery of vaccines in that it not only offers an easy to use, non-invasive, needle-free alternative to more conventional parenteral injection, but it also creates an opportunity to elicit both systemic and (crucially) mucosal immune responses which may increase the capability of controlling pathogens at the site of entry. Immune responses to "naked" antigens are often modest and it is widely accepted that incorporation of an adjuvant is a prerequisite for the achievement of clinically effective nasal vaccines. Many existing adjuvants are sub-optimal or unsuitable because of local toxicity or poor enhancement of immunogenicity. Chitosan, particularly chitosan salts, have now been used in several preclinical and clinical studies with good tolerability, excellent immune stimulation and positive clinical results across a number of infections. Particularly significant evidence supporting chitosan as an adjuvant for nasal vaccination comes from clinical investigations on a norovirus vaccine; this demonstrated the ability of chitosan (ChiSys®), when combined with monophosphoryl lipid, to evoke robust immunological responses and confer protective immunity following (enteral) norovirus challenge. This article summarizes the totality of the meaningful information (including key unpublished data) supporting the development of chitosan-adjuvanted vaccines.

Fourteen patients with established atrial fibrillation (longer than three months) that was refractory to treatment were studied to compare the clinical and electrophysiological effects of amiodarone and bepridil. All patients initially received bepridil for three weeks (200-600 mg/day), followed by amiodarone for two to three months (100-400 mg/day). Bepridil seemed to be slightly more effective than amiodarone in converting the fibrillation to sinus rhythm (nine of fourteen compared with four of ten). The ventricular response in atrial fibrillation was equally well controlled by bepridil and amiodarone, both at rest and during exercise. Bepridil was associated with the development of ventricular arrhythmias in eight of fourteen patients; two had torsade de pointes, which in one degenerated into fatal ventricular fibrillation. These arrhythmias seemed to be associated with bepridil induced prolongation of the QTc interval. No ventricular arrhythmias were seen during amiodarone treatment. Although bepridil seems to be an effective antiarrhythmic agent for the management of atrial fibrillation, its arrhythmogenic actions make it unsuitable for this purpose.