Democracy Dies in Darkness

A prototype of how to fight the next pandemic: A vaccine without the shot

September 12, 2018 at 2:02 PM

In this 1918 photo, volunteer nurses from the American Red Cross tend to influenza patients in the Oakland Municipal Auditorium, used as a temporary hospital. Vaccine researchers are racing to develop new technologies to avoid a repeat of the pandemic, which killed 50 million people. (Edward A. "Doc" Rogers/Library of Congress/AP)

When the next dead­ly pan­dem­ic flu hits, the first chal­lenge will be to de­vel­op a vac­cine. But loom­ing behind that ob­sta­cle is another: How to get an in­oc­u­la­tion to millions of people with­out in­ad­vert­ent­ly ex­ac­er­bat­ing the cri­sis.

Af­ter all, droves of people — some who might already be sick­ened — who flock to health centers for a shot could be a po­tent way for the in­fec­tion to spread.

On the 100th anniversary of the in­flu­en­za pan­dem­ic of 1918 that sick­ened a third of the world's pop­u­la­tion and killed 50 million people, vac­cine re­search­ers are ur­gent­ly search­ing for new ap­proach­es to pre­pare for the next pan­dem­ic — a threat that most pub­lic health of­fi­cials con­sider in­evi­table. A new study pro­vides proof of con­cept for a so­lu­tion that could up­end the tra­di­tion­al cen­tral­ized mod­el, in which health pro­fes­sion­als give in­jec­tions at clin­ics.

Re­search­ers cre­at­ed an H5N1 vac­cine, boost­ed by a spe­cial in­gre­di­ent that primes the body's im­mune sys­tem to re­spond. Then, they ad­min­is­tered it through a microneedle that only pen­et­rates the up­per lay­er of the skin. They see this pro­to­type tech­nol­o­gy as a plat­form that could lead to novel vac­cine patch­es that can be dis­tri­but­ed rap­id­ly and ad­min­is­tered with­out a nurse. People would sim­ply have to stick a band­age-like strip, lined with micro­scop­ic nee­dles, onto their skin.

"It's an ex­cel­lent, ex­treme­ly com­pre­hen­sive and well-done study,” said Mark Poznansky, di­rec­tor of the Vac­cine and Im­mu­no­ther­a­py Center at Mas­sa­chu­setts General Hospital, who was not in­volved in the re­search, which was pub­lished in Science Ad­van­ces. “What they're sug­gest­ing is some­thing you could stick in an en­ve­lope and get to people rap­id­ly — it's an im­port­ant break­through tech­nol­o­gy."

Related: Russian trolls and Twitter bots exploit vaccine controversy

The re­search team com­bined sev­er­al dif­fer­ent tech­nolo­gies into their pro­to­type: tiny, hol­low microneedles that pen­e­trate only the up­per lay­er of the skin were paired with vac­cines made from nonin­fec­tious “vi­rus-like par­ti­cles” that can be rap­id­ly pro­duced by to­bac­co plants. Cru­cial­ly, researchers add­ed another in­gre­di­ent, called an ad­ju­vant, that speeds up and strength­ens the body's re­sponse to the vac­cine.

The study, fund­ed by the Defense Ad­vanced Research Projects Agency, is still at an early stage. Large-scale hu­man tri­als will be need­ed to de­ter­mine the safe­ty of the ap­proach, which suc­cess­ful­ly pro­tect­ed fer­rets from H5N1 and ap­peared safe in a small hu­man tri­al to study safe­ty.

Dar­rick Carter, a bio­chem­ist at the In­fec­tious Dis­eas­e Research Institute in Seattle, said that one of the most ex­cit­ing things their study showed was that the ad­ju­vant seemed to con­fer pro­tec­tion not just against the tar­get vi­rus but also to re­lated vi­rus­es.

If that ob­ser­va­tion is borne out in further stud­ies, it could ad­dress an im­port­ant prob­lem in vac­cine de­vel­op­ment. If the strain of vi­rus used to cre­ate the vac­cine mis­match­es the patho­gen that is out there cir­cu­lat­ing in the world, the vac­cine be­comes much less ef­fec­tive. The 2016-2017 flu vac­cine was only mod­er­ate­ly ef­fec­tive, for ex­am­ple, be­cause of a mu­ta­tion in the vi­rus.

Because pub­lic health of­fi­cials seek­ing to pre­pare for a pan­dem­ic flu won't know the ex­act strain in ad­vance and the vi­rus could change dur­ing an out­break, vac­cines that could be made more broad­ly ef­fec­tive with an ad­ju­vant are ex­cit­ing to re­search­ers.

"If you think a­bout the me­chan­ics of how the stock­pile is done, with a sin­gle vi­rus and millions of doses — the prob­a­bil­i­ty of that ex­act vi­rus em­er­ging is, in my mind, fair­ly low,” Carter said.

Carter and col­leagues are ea­ger to move the work for­ward but say they have reached some­thing of an im­passe. While they were able to se­cure early fund­ing to dem­on­strate the sci­ence behind the tech­nique and show early proof of its clin­i­cal prom­ise, they don't yet have a part­ner to try to scale up the ef­fort and test it in a lar­ger pop­u­la­tion.

As they search for sup­port to move the re­search to the next step, they said they plan to ap­ply the tech­nol­o­gy to an area of medi­cine where fund­ing is typ­i­cal­ly more ac­ces­si­ble: can­cer. They hope that the ad­ju­vant that stimu­lates the im­mune sys­tem could, if in­ject­ed into a tu­mor, a­wak­en the body's im­mune cells to attack the tu­mor.

Read More:

There’s a sur­pris­ing­ly sim­ple way to convince vac­cine skeptics to re­con­sid­er

Why it's a bad i­de­a to space out your child's vac­ci­na­tions shots

HPV-re­lated can­cer rates are ris­ing. So are vac­cine rates — just not fast en­ough.

Carolyn Johnson is a science reporter. She previously covered the business of health and the affordability of health care to consumers.

Post Recommends

We're glad you're enjoying The Washington Post.

Get access to this story, and every story, on the web and in our apps with our Basic Digital subscription.

Welcome to The Washington Post

Thank you for subscribing