AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 2–10 | Cite as

Novel dry powder preparations of whole inactivated influenza virus for nasal vaccination

  • Robert J. Garmise
  • Herman F. Staats
  • Anthony J. Hickey


The purpose of these studies was to enhance mucosal and systemic antibody production in response to increased local residence time of a whole inactivated influenza virus administered as a dry powder nasal vaccine formulation. Spray-freeze-drying (SFD) particles suitable for nasal delivery were characterized for physico-chemical properties and stability. Mucoadhesive compounds (MA) were characterized for their effects on nasal residence time of vaccine powders in rats compared with published in vitro data and elicited immune responses. SFD particles (D50=26.9µm) were spherical with a specific surface area of 1.25 m2/g. Thermal analysis indicated SFD powders were amorphous and demonstrated improved stability with respect to liquid formulations under various storage conditions. In vitro physico-chemical studies and in vivo scintigraphic imaging experiments indicated sodium alginate (SA) and carboxymethylcellulose-high molecular weight (CMC-HMW) powder formulations most significantly increased residence time in Brown Norway rats. Intramuscular delivery provided equivalent serum antibody titers to intranasal (IN) powder without MA, in the presence of CMC-HMW, SA, and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC-HMW) after initial dosing and all formulations except IN powder with chitosan after boosting. IN liquid provided equivalent serum antibody titers to all IN powders after the initial vaccination and significantly greater serum antibody titers than IN powder with chitosan after boosting. Trends were consistent between residence time studies and immune response; however, no statistically significant differences between powder and liquid formulations were observed. It was concluded that enhanced serum and mucosal antibody responses were elicited by a dry powder nasal vaccine, specifically, administered in the presence of sodium alginate.


intranasal powder influenza vaccine mucoadhesive spray-freeze-drying 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smith, DJ, Bot S, Dellamary L, Bot A. Evaluation of novel aerosol formulations designed for mucosal vaccination against influenza virus.Vaccine. 2003;21:2805–2812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson J, Fishbourne E, Corteyn A, Donaldson AI. Protection of cattle against rinderpest by intranasal immunisation with a dry powder tissue culture vaccine.Vaccine. 2000;19:840–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    LiCalsi C. Christensen T, Bennett JV, Phillips E, Witham C. Dry powder inhalation as a potential delivery method for vaccines.Vaccine. 1999;17:1796–1803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    LiCalsi C. Maniaci MJ, Christensen T, Phillips E, Ward GH, Witham C. A powder formulation of measles vaccine for aerosol delivery.Vaccine. 2001;19:2629–2636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Illum L, Jabbal-Gill I, Hinchcliffe M, Fisher AN, Davis SS. Chitsoan as a novel nasal delivery system for vaccines.Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;51:81–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garmise RJ, Mar K, Crowder TM, et al. Formulation of a dry powder influenza vaccine for nasal delivery.AAPS PharmSciTech. 2006;7: article 19.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang J, Garmise RJ, Crowder TM, et al. A novel dry powder influenza vaccine and intranasal delivery technology: induction of systemic and mucosal immune responses in rats.Vaccine. 2004;23:794–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Costantino HR, Firouzabadian L, Wu C, et al. Protein spray freeze drying. 2. Effect of formulation variables on particle size and stability.J Pharm Sci. 2002;91:388–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costantino HR, Firouzabadian L, Hogeland K, et al. Protein spray-freeze drying. Effect of atomization conditions on particle size and stability.Pharm Res. 2000;17:1374–1383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gombotz WR, Healy MS, Brown LR, Auer HE, inventors. Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc., assignee. Process for producing small particles of biologically active molecules. US patent 6569458. May 27, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maa YF, Nguyen PA, Sweeney T, Shire SJ, Hsu CC. Protein inhalation powders: spray drying vs spray freeze drying.Pharm Res. 1999;16:249–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carrasquillo KG, Stanley AM, Aponte-Carro JC, et al. Non-aqueous encapsulation of excipient-stabilized spray-freeze dried BSA into poly (lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres results in release of native protein.J Control Release. 2001;76:199–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carrasquillo KG, Carro JC, Alejandro A, Toro DD, Griebenow K. Reduction of structural perturbations in bovine serum albumin by nonaqueous microencapsulation.J Pharm Pharmacol. 2001;53:115–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bacon A, Makin J, Sizer PJ, et al. Carbohydrate biopolymers enhance antibody responses to mucosally delivered vaccine antigens.Infect Immun. 2000;68:5764–5770.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aspden TJ, Mason JD, Jones NS, Lowe J, Skaugrud O, Illum L. Chitosan as a nasal delivery system: the effect of chitosan solutions on in vitro and in vivo mucociliary transport rates in human turbinates and volunteers.J Pharm Sci. 1997;86:509–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheng Y-H, Dyer AM, Jabbal-Gill I, et al. Intranasal delivery of recombinant human growth hormone (somatropin) in sheep using chitosan-based powder formulations.Eur J Pharm Sci. 2005;26:9–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Illum L, Fisher AN, Jabbal-Gill I, Davis SS. Bioadhesive starch microspheres and absorption enhancing agents act synergistically to enhance the nasal absorption of polypeptides.Int J Pharm. 2001;222:109–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soane RJ, Frier M, Perkins AC, Jones NS, Davis SS, Illum L. Evaluation of the clearance characteristics of bioadhesive systems in humans.Int J Pharm. 1999;178:55–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soane RJ, Hinchcliffe M, Davis SS, Illum L. Clearance characteristics of chitosan based formulations in the sheep nasal cavity.Int J Pharm. 2001;217:183–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ugwoke MI, Agu RU, Jorissen M, et al. Nasal toxicological investigations of Carbopol 971P formulation of apomorphine: effects on ciliary beat frequency of human nasal primary cell culture and in vivo on rabbit nasal mucosa.Eur J Pharm Sci. 2000;9:387–396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ugwoke MI, Agu RU, Vanbilloen H, et al. Scintigraphic evaluation in rabbits of nasal drug delivery systems based on carbopol 971p((R)) and carboxymethylcellulose.J Control Release. 2000;68:207–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin AN, Bustamante P.Physical Pharmacy: Physical Chemmical Principles in the Pharmaceutical Sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carstensen JT.Pharmaceutical Principles of Solid Dosage Forms. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co.; 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carr RL, jr. Evaluating flow properties of solids.Chem Eng. 1965;72:163–168.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carr RL, Jr. Classifying flow properties of solids.Chem Eng. 1965;72:69–72.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staniforth JN. Powder flow. In: Aulton ME, ed.Pharmaceutics: The Science of Dosage Form Design. 1st ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2002:197–210.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu Z, III, Johnston KP, III, Williams RO, III. Spray freezing into liquid versus spray-freeze drying: influence of atomization on protein aggregation and biological activity.Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006;27:9–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Surana R, Pyne A, Suryanarayanan R. Effect of preparation method on physical properties of amorphous trehalose.Pharm Res. 2004;21:1167–1176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    FDA.US FDA Draft Guidance for Industry. Q1A(R2) Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products. Bethesda, MD: USFDA; 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pikal MJ. Freeze-drying of proteins. In: Cleland JL, Langer R, eds.Formulation and Delivery of Proteins and Peptides. vol. 5567. Washington, DC: ACS Symposium Series; 1994:120–133.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carpenter JF, Pikal MJ, Chang BS, Randolph TW. Rational design of stable lyophilized protein formulations: some practical advice.Pharm Res. 1997;14:969–975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carpenter JF, Chang BS. Lyophilization of protein pharmaceuticals. In: Avis KE, Wu VL, eds.Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing, Processing, and Preservation. Buffalo Grove, IL: Interpharm Press; 1996:199–264.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abdul-Fattah A, Truong-Le V, Yee L, et al. Drying-induced variations in physico-chemical properties of amorphous pharmaceuticals and their impact on stability II: stability of a vaccine.Pharm Res. 2007;24:715–727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Garmise RJ, Hickey AJ. In vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive compounds for use in a dry powder nasal vaccine. Paper presented at: Respiratory Drug Delivery X; April 23–27, 2006; boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nelson M, Prior JL, Lever MS, Jones HE, Atkins TP, Titball RW. Evaluation of lipopolysaccharide and capsular polysaccharide as subunit vaccines against experimental melioidosis.J Med Microbiol. 2004;53:1177–1182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Garmise
    • 1
  • Herman F. Staats
    • 2
  • Anthony J. Hickey
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PharmacyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  2. 2.Department of PathologyDuke University Medical CenterDurham

Personalised recommendations