The Development of Self-Emulsifying Oil-in-Water Emulsion Adjuvant and an Evaluation of the Impact of Droplet Size on Performance

Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volumn 104, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 1352-1361

  Shah, Ruchi R ^a   Dodd, Stephanie ^b   Schaefer, Mary ^c   Ugozzoli, Mildred ^c   Singh, Manmohan ^d   Otten, Gillis R ^c   Amiji, Mansoor M ^a   O'Hagan, Derek T ^c   Brito, Luis A ^c  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^c Novartis Vaccines Cambridge   (United States)

^d Novartis Vaccines Global Engineering   (United States)

Author keywords

emulsion; formulation; particle size; physical characterization; self emulsifying; squalene; vaccine adjuvants; vaccines

Indexed keywords

ANTIGEN; INFLUENZA VACCINE; OVALBUMIN; SQUALENE; WATER OIL CREAM; ANTIBODY; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; EMULSION; IMMUNOLOGICAL ADJUVANT; NANOPARTICLE; OIL; WATER;

ANTIBODY TITER; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG POTENCY; DRUG STABILITY; EMULSION; HUMORAL IMMUNITY; IMMUNE RESPONSE; IMMUNOGENICITY; IN VIVO STUDY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; TEMPERATURE; ANIMAL; BAGG ALBINO MOUSE; BLOOD; C57BL MOUSE; CELL CULTURE; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DRUG EFFECTS; FEMALE; IMMUNIZATION; IMMUNOLOGY; INTRAMUSCULAR DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY; MICROFLUIDICS; PARTICLE SIZE; PHARMACEUTICS; PROCEDURES; SPLEEN; TIME;

ADJUVANTS, IMMUNOLOGIC; ANIMALS; ANTIBODIES; BIOMARKERS; CELLS, CULTURED; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; EMULSIONS; FEMALE; IMMUNITY, HUMORAL; IMMUNIZATION; INFLUENZA VACCINES; INJECTIONS, INTRAMUSCULAR; MICE, INBRED BALB C; MICE, INBRED C57BL; MICROFLUIDICS; NANOPARTICLES; OILS; OVALBUMIN; PARTICLE SIZE; SPLEEN; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL; TIME FACTORS; WATER;

EID: 84924766811     PISSN: 00223549     EISSN: 15206017     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jps.24337     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Foged C, Hansen J, Agger EM. 2012. License to kill: Formulation requirements for optimal priming of CD8(+) CTL responses with particulate vaccine delivery systems. Eur J Pharm Sci 45(4):482-491.
2. O'Hagan DT, et al. 2013. The history of MF59((R)) adjuvant: A phoenix that arose from the ashes. Expert Rev Vaccines 12(1):13-30.
3. Pouton CW. 1997. Formulation of self-emulsifying drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 25(1):47-58.
4. Gursoy RN, Benita S. 2004. Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDS) for improved oral delivery of lipophilic drugs. Biomed Pharmacother 58(3):173-182.
5. Vonderscher J. 1994. Rationale for the development of Sandimmune Neoral. Transplant Proc 26(5):2925-2927.
6. Pouton CW. 2000. Lipid formulations for oral administration of drugs: Non-emulsifying, self-emulsifying and 'self-microemulsifying' drug delivery systems. Eur J Pharm Sci 11(Supplement 2(0)):S93-S98.
7. Pouton CW. 2006. Formulation of poorly water-soluble drugs for oral administration: Physicochemical and physiological issues and the lipid formulation classification system. Eur J Pharm Sci 29(3-4):278-287.
8. Ott G, Barchfeld GL, VanNest G. 1995. Enhancement of humoral response against human influenza vaccine with the simple submicron oil/water emulsion adjuvant MF59. Vaccine 13(16):1557-1562.
9. Li X, Aldayel AM, Cui Z. 2014. Aluminum hydroxide nanoparticles show a stronger vaccine adjuvant activity than traditional aluminum hydroxide microparticles. J Control Release 173:148-157.
10. Brewer JM, et al. 1998. Lipid vesicle size determines the Th1 or Th2 response to entrapped antigen. J Immunol 161(8):4000-4007.
11. Mann JF, et al. 2009. Lipid vesicle size of an oral influenza vaccine delivery vehicle influences the Th1/Th2 bias in the immune response and protection against infection. Vaccine 27(27):3643-3649.
12. Oyewumi MO, Kumar A, Cui Z. 2010. Nano-microparticles as immune adjuvants: Correlating particle sizes and the resultant immune responses. Expert Rev Vaccines 9(9):1095-1107.
13. Fang J-H, Hora M. 2000. The adjuvant MF59: A 10-year perspective In Vaccine adjuvants; O'Hagan DT, Ed. New York: Springer, 211-228.
14. Geall AJ, et al. 2012. Nonviral delivery of self-amplifying RNA vaccines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(36):14604-14609.
15. Klein N. 2009. Quality control methods for oil-in-water emulsions containing squalene. Patent EP2218460 A3.
16. Brito LA, Singh M. 2011. Acceptable levels of endotoxin in vaccine formulations during preclinical research. J Pharm Sci 100(1):34-37.
17. Perrie Y, et al. 2013. A case-study investigating the physicochemical characteristics that dictate the function of a liposomal adjuvant. Hum Vaccin Immunother 9(6):1374-1381.
18. Kaur R, et al. 2012. Manipulation of the surface pegylation in combination with reduced vesicle size of cationic liposomal adjuvants modifies their clearance kinetics from the injection site, and the rate and type of T cell response. J Control Release 164(3):331-337.
19. Stewart-Tull DS. 2010. Freund's complete and incomplete adjuvants, preparation, and quality control standards for experimental laboratory animals use. In Vaccine adjuvants, Davies G, Ed. Humana Press, 59-72.
20. Garcon N, Vaughn DW, Didierlaurent AM. 2012. Development and evaluation of AS03, an adjuvant system containing alpha-tocopherol and squalene in an oil-in-water emulsion. Expert Rev Vaccines 11(3):349-366.
21. Li P, et al. 2005. Effect of combined use of nonionic surfactant on formation of oil-in-water microemulsions. Int J Pharm 288(1):27-34.
22. Gamvrellis A, et al. 2004. Vaccines that facilitate antigen entry into dendritic cells. Immunol Cell Biol 82(5):506-516.
23. Manolova V, et al. 2008. Nanoparticles target distinct dendritic cell populations according to their size. Eur J Immunol 38(5):1404-1413.
24. Xiang SD, et al. 2006. Pathogen recognition and development of particulate vaccines: Does size matter? Methods 40(1):1-9.
25. Fifis T, et al. 2004. Size-dependent immunogenicity: Therapeutic and protective properties of nano-vaccines against tumors. J Immunol 173(5):3148-3154.
26. Calabro S, et al. 2013. The adjuvant effect of MF59 is due to the oil-in-water emulsion formulation, none of the individual components induce a comparable adjuvant effect. Vaccine 31(33):3363-3369.
27. Zhao L, et al. 2014. Nanoparticle vaccines. Vaccine 32(3):327-337.
28. Joshi VB, Geary SM, Salem AK. 2013. Biodegradable particles as vaccine delivery systems: Size matters. AAPS J 15(1):85-94.
29. Foged C, et al. 2005. Particle size and surface charge affect particle uptake by human dendritic cells in an in vitro model. Int J Pharm 298(2):315-322.
30. Henriksen-Lacey M, et al. 2010. Comparison of the depot effect and immunogenicity of liposomes based on dimethyldioctadecylammonium (DDA), 3$-[N-(N′,N′-dimethylaminoethane)carbomyl] cholesterol (DC-Chol), and 1,2-dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium propane (DOTAP): Prolonged liposome retention mediates stronger Th1 responses. Mol Pharm 8(1):153-161.
31. Seubert A, et al. 2008. The adjuvants aluminum hydroxide and MF59 induce monocyte and granulocyte chemoattractants and enhance monocyte differentiation toward dendritic cells. J Immunol 180(8):5402-5412.
32. Dupuis M, McDonald DM, Ott G. 1999. Distribution of adjuvant MF59 and antigen gD2 after intramuscular injection in mice. Vaccine 18(5-6):434-439.
33. Xu J, Gattacceca F, Amiji M. 2013. Biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of EGFR-targeted thiolated gelatin nanoparticles following systemic administration in pancreatic tumor-bearing mice. Mol Pharm 10(5):2031-2044.
34. Gindy ME, Prud'homme RK. 2009. Multifunctional nanoparticles for imaging, delivery and targeting in cancer therapy. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 6(8):865-878.