|Articles|November 12, 2014

Single-Dose, Needle-Free Ebola Vaccine Provides Long-Term Protection in Macaques

Scientists have demonstrated for the first time that a single-dose, needleless Ebola vaccine given to primates through their noses and lungs protected them against infection for at least 21 weeks. A vaccine that doesn't require an injection could help prevent passing along infections through unintentional pricks. They report the results of their study on macaques in the ACS journal Molecular Pharmaceutics.

Maria A. Croyle and colleagues note that in the current Ebola outbreak, which is expected to involve thousands more infections and deaths before it's over, an effective vaccine could help turn the tide. Even better, taking the needle out of the inoculation process could also help prevent the accidental transmission of Ebola, as well as other diseases, such as HIV, that might otherwise spread from unintentional needle pricks and unsafe handling of medical wastes. Other vaccines are currently under development to fight the virus, but they require an injection. Croyle's team tested an adenovirus-based Ebola vaccine using a respiratory delivery route.

The researchers gave a novel formulation of an Ebola vaccine to several macaques then exposed them to the virus more than four months later. All three of the animals that received the vaccine through the nose and via a catheter into their airways did not fall ill. However, since special equipment and training are required for the current respiratory delivery method, the scientists conclude that further work is needed if this formula, or an under-the-tongue version, is to be used eventually in large-scale immunization campaigns.

The authors acknowledge funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Source: American Chemical Society


Related to this article

Infection preventionists in full PPE with children in DRC.  (Image credit: author with AI)
Nearly 4 months into the DRC's Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak, some indicators suggest transmission may be slowing. But shifting hotspots, treatment-center capacity problems, community deaths, and incomplete surveillance data show why national case totals alone cannot determine whether containment has been achieved.