The Gade Institute, University of Bergen, Norway.
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2012 May;8(5):689-93. doi: 10.4161/hv.19568. Epub 2012 May 1.
Intranasal vaccination can effectively induce both local and systemic immune responses and protect against influenza, but poses a risk of antigen or adjuvant delivery into the central nervous system (CNS). Sublingual vaccine delivery has recently received increased attention as a safer alternative to the intranasal route. Studies comparing the two routes have found that higher immune responses may be induced by intranasal than sublingual administration, possibly as a consequence of the differences in mucosal tissues between the two routes. Here we examine evidence of antigen transport into the CNS following intranasal immunisation and discuss possible reasons for the superiority of the intranasal as compared with the sublingual route in terms of vaccine immunogenicity. We encourage generation of more information on the safety of mucosal adjuvants and propose that the next generation of vaccines and adjuvants may be designed specifically for administration via the different mucosal routes.
鼻腔接种可以有效地诱导局部和全身免疫反应，并预防流感，但存在将抗原或佐剂递送到中枢神经系统 (CNS) 的风险。近年来，舌下疫苗接种作为鼻腔接种的一种更安全的替代方法受到了更多关注。比较这两种途径的研究发现，鼻腔接种比舌下接种可能诱导更高的免疫反应，这可能是由于两种途径的粘膜组织存在差异。在这里，我们检查了鼻腔免疫接种后抗原向中枢神经系统转运的证据，并讨论了与舌下途径相比，鼻腔途径在疫苗免疫原性方面具有优势的可能原因。我们鼓励更多地了解粘膜佐剂的安全性，并提出下一代疫苗和佐剂可能专门设计用于通过不同的粘膜途径进行给药。
