Buccal and Sublingual Vaccines: A Review on Oral Mucosal Immunization and Delivery Systems

Trincado, Valeria; Gala, Rikhav P.; Morales, Javier

doi:10.3390/vaccines9101177

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 118 publications

(158 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, mucosal vaccines are feasible for large-scale vaccination and eliminate the risk of blood-borne infections posed by injected vaccines [ 4 ]. The benefits of mucosal vaccines also include convenient distribution and administration as well as improved patient compliance [ 5 , 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polymeric Nanoparticles for Inhaled Vaccines

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many recent studies focus on the pulmonary delivery of vaccines as it is needle-free, safe, and effective. Inhaled vaccines enhance systemic and mucosal immunization but still faces many limitations that can be resolved using polymeric nanoparticles (PNPs). This review focuses on the use of properties of PNPs, specifically chitosan and PLGA to be used in the delivery of vaccines by inhalation. It also aims to highlight that PNPs have adjuvant properties by themselves that induce cellular and humeral immunogenicity. Further, different factors influence the behavior of PNP in vivo such as size, morphology, and charge are discussed. Finally, some of the primary challenges facing PNPs are reviewed including formulation instability, reproducibility, device-related factors, patient-related factors, and industrial-level scale-up. Herein, the most important variables of PNPs that shall be defined in any PNPs to be used for pulmonary delivery are defined. Further, this study focuses on the most popular polymers used for this purpose.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polymeric Nanoparticles for Inhaled Vaccines

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The induction of a potent mucosal response is one of the main challenges to address to efficiently fight mucosal viral infections, as the secretion of mucosal IgA antibodies could protect both from infection and transmission [5,6]. Two main challenges have to be overcome for the development of a successful SL vaccine: (1) the design of an efficient mucoadhesive delivery system able to avoid dilution of the vaccine in the saliva and (2) immunogenic tolerance by the use of an effective adjuvant [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mucosal Adjuvants Delivered by a Mucoadhesive Patch for Sublingual Administration of Subunit Vaccines

Monge

Ayad

Paris

et al. 2022

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among mucosal administration routes for vaccines, the sublingual route has been proven capable of inducing a potent systemic and mucosal immune response. However, the absence of a simple and compliant delivery system and the lack of robust mucosal adjuvants impede the development of sublingual vaccines. Here, we describe a mucoadhesive patch made of a layer-by-layer assembly of polysaccharides, chitosan, and hyaluronic acid. The mucoadhesive patch was covered by adjuvanted nanoparticles carrying viral proteins. We showed that the nanoparticles effectively cross the outer layers of the sublingual mucosa to reach the epithelium. Furthermore, the encapsulated adjuvants, 3M-052 and mifamurtide, targeting toll-like receptor (TLR) 7/8 and nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-2 (NOD2), respectively, remain fully active after encapsulation into nanoparticles and exhibit a cytokine/chemokine signature similar to the mucosal gold-standard adjuvant, the cholera toxin. However, the particulate adjuvants induced more moderate levels of proinflammatory interleukin (IL)-6 and keratinocyte chemoattractant (KC), suggesting a controlled activation of the innate immune response.

show abstract

“…Mucosal vaccines, such as those that are delivered through the IN, sublingual (SL), and oral routes, are capable of inducing both systemic and mucosal antigen-specific immune Life 2022, 12, 975 2 of 13 responses [6]. This is one major advantage of mucosal vaccines over parental vaccines, which only elicit a systemic immune response in the immunized hosts [7]. IN delivery of influenza virus vaccines can induce potent mucosal immune responses and enhance protection [8], however, this immunization route is hindered by a short residence time, quick clearance of antigens, and can result in the retrograde passage of the vaccine components to the CNS [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is one major advantage of mucosal vaccines over parental vaccines, which only elicit a systemic immune response in the immunized hosts [ 7 ]. IN delivery of influenza virus vaccines can induce potent mucosal immune responses and enhance protection [ 8 ], however, this immunization route is hindered by a short residence time, quick clearance of antigens, and can result in the retrograde passage of the vaccine components to the CNS [ 7 ]. Compared to IN, SL and oral routes are a safer, more convenient, and easier alternatives for vaccine administration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sublingual Vaccination with Live Influenza Virus Induces Better Protection Than Oral Immunization in Mice

Mao

Eom

Yoon

et al. 2022

Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both sublingual (SL) and oral vaccine administration modalities are convenient, easy, and safe. Here, we have investigated the differences in vaccine efficacy that are induced by oral and sublingual immunization with live influenza virus (A/Hong Kong/1/1968, H3N2) in mice. Intranasally administering a lethal dose of the influenza virus resulted in the deaths of the mice, whereas viral replication in the lungs did not occur upon SL or oral administration. At 30 days post-immunization through the SL or oral route, the mice were intranasally challenge-infected with the lethal dose of the homologous influenza virus. Both SL and oral immunizations with the influenza virus elicited significantly higher levels of virus-specific IgG and IgA antibody responses, as well as HAI titers in the sera. Upon challenge infection, the SL immunization elicited higher levels of pulmonary IgG antibody and CD8+ T cell responses than the oral immunization. Enhanced splenic germinal center B (GC B) and B cell proliferation were also detected from the SL immunization, both of which were significantly greater than those of the oral immunization. Importantly, compared to oral immunization, significantly lessened lung viral loads and bodyweight reductions were observed from the SL immunization and these parameters contributed to prolonging the survival of the immunized mice. These results indicate that both SL and oral administration could be effective routes in inducing protective immunity against influenza virus infection, with SL immunization being the better of the two delivery routes.

show abstract

Buccal and Sublingual Vaccines: A Review on Oral Mucosal Immunization and Delivery Systems

Cited by 26 publications

References 118 publications

Polymeric Nanoparticles for Inhaled Vaccines

Polymeric Nanoparticles for Inhaled Vaccines

Mucosal Adjuvants Delivered by a Mucoadhesive Patch for Sublingual Administration of Subunit Vaccines

Sublingual Vaccination with Live Influenza Virus Induces Better Protection Than Oral Immunization in Mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About