Drug – bio-affecting and body treating compositions – Nonspecific immunoeffector – per se ; or nonspecific...
Reexamination Certificate
1999-02-25
2004-09-28
Ewoldt, G. R. (Department: 1644)
Drug, bio-affecting and body treating compositions
Nonspecific immunoeffector, per se ; or nonspecific...
C424S234100, C424S283100, C424S184100, C424S204100, C424S206100, C424S241100, C424S265100, C424S274100
Reexamination Certificate
active
06797276
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to transcutaneous immunization using an ADP-ribosylating exotoxin or other adjuvants with an antigen, and the use of penetration enhancers and barrier disruption agents to enhance the immune response. The invention also relates to activation of the antigen, adjuvant, their targets in the skin, or a combination thereof to enhance the antigen-specific immune response induced thereto.
2. Description of the Related Art
Skin, the largest organ of the human body, is an important part of the body's defense against invasion by infectious agents and contact with noxious chemicals (see Bos, 1997). Unwanted skin reactions such as allergic or atopic dermatitis are known, but induction of a systemic immune response by application of an adjuvant and antigen which elicits specific immune effectors and provides a therapeutic advantage by simple application of adjuvant and antigen to skin does not appear to have been taught or suggested prior to our invention.
Cholera toxin (CT) and heat labile interotoxin from
E. coli
(LT) are examples of a noxious chemical, which one would have expected the protective layers of skin to protect against penetration by the noxius substances. Craig (1965) reported that stool filtrates of cholera patients injected intracutaneously into rabbits or guinea pigs produced a characteristic delayed, sustained edematous induration (swelling), which was induced by the presence of toxin in the skin. The swelling and vascular leakage was so dramatic that it was ascribed to an unknown permeability factor which was later shown to be CT itself. Thus, one could have reasonably expected that CT would be extremely reactogenic when placed on the skin, if it were to enter the skin, causing similar redness and swelling. The Craig test injecting CT into the skin, became a standard measurement for the presence and amount of CT in stool filtrates or culture media. Data confirmed that this skin reactivity was due to cholera toxin (see Finkelstein and LoSpallutto, 1969).
Craig (1965) cautioned. “The absence of skin lesions in clinical cholera certainly does not preclude the possibility that the noxa responsible for gut damage could also have a deleterious effect upon the skin provided it is applied to skin in sufficient concentration”. The extreme reactogenicity of cholera toxin in the skin was used as a test for its toxicity and the prior art evidenced an expectation that cholera toxin would be reactogenic if applied to the skin, producing an undesirable reaction. Such adverse reactions have been well documented by known authorities in the field (Craig, 1972).
In contrast, we have shown cholera toxin to be immunogenic, acting as both antigen and adjuvant, when placed on the skin but without any resulting local or systemic side effects. This lack of reactogenicity when cholera toxin was placed on the skin for transcutaneous immunization was surprising and contradicted conclusions one would have drawn from the prior art. Specifically, CT placed on the skin according to our invention acts as a non-toxic, non-reactogenic adjuvant, in contrast to the expectations of Craig, while injection of CT into the skin results in swelling and redness. Thus, it was not obvious prior to our invention that cholera toxin or other ADP-ribosylating exotoxins or allow adjuvants applied topically would be useful for transcutaneous immunization. In fact large doses of heat labile enterotoxin (LT) placed on the skin of humans has been shown to induce a systemic immune response without local or systemic toxicity.
This unexpected absence of reactogenicity is extremely important to the use of vaccines. Vaccine antigens and adjuvants are useful when imunization produces a protective immune response without significant unwanted reactions. Historically, reactogenicity of vaccines such as swelling, tenderness and pain at the site of injection has in some cases (e.g., typhoid and pertussis) been accepted because of the benefits of vaccination. However, high levels of reactogenicity and other side effects are not desirable, and would be problematic for development of new vaccine adjuvant and antigen candidates. Research efforts are focused on making vaccine adjuvants that are stimulatory and do not inducing unwanted reactions. Whole cell pertussis vaccines induce systemic and local side effects and, as a result, this effective vaccine and time tested vaccine is being replaced by acellular pertussis vaccines solely because they are less reactogenic.
The present invention differs from that of U.S. Pat. No. 5,830,877 which teaches the use of a naked plasmid that encodes for biologically active peptides into a mammnalian host. The invention described herein teaches the use of an adjuvant and antigen or nucleic acid administered together on the skin to induce an immune response. The invention described herein further differs from that of U.S. Pat. No. 5,830,877 which teaches away from the use of peptides that are not encoded in a nucleic acid and produced by the host cell because of the toxicity associated with biologically active peptides, the problems and cost of isolating, purifying and synthesizing peptides and their short half life in vivo resulting form degradation by proteases present in the target tissue. This clearly teaches away from the addition of an adjuvant such a cholera toxin to a coadministered antigen or nucleic acid. In fact the novelty of the ability of a large molecule such as CT to induce an immune response by application through the skin without toxicity has led to a number of scientific papers describing this novelty and public excitement over the potential implication of delivery of proteins for vaccination by skin application. Unlike U.S. Pat. No. 5,830,877 the present invention is not dependent on stimulation of local inflammation or irritation. Unlike U.S. Pat. No. 5,830,877 the invention does not depend on irritation or local inflammation to increase the permeability of cell membranes to enhance the uptake of the antigens, plasmids or RNA. In fact the striking feature regarding Transcutaneous Immunization is the absence of local inflammation.
Unlike the present invention, U.S. Pat. No. 5,824,313 teaches the application of extremely small (less than 500 daltons) lymphoid organ modifying agents such as 1,25-dihydroxy-16-ene Vitamin D.sub.3 and calcipotriene or dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), DHEA congeners and DHEA-derivatives with the intramuscular injection of an antigen to affect antibody responses.
Transcutaneous immunization requires both passage of an antigen through the outer barriers of the skin, which was thought to be impervious to such passage, and an immune response to the antigen. Fisher's Contact Dermatitis states that molecules of greater than 500 daltons cannot normally penetrate the skin. There is a report by Paul et al. (1995) of induction of an immune response with transferosomes, a lipid structure distinct from liposomes. In this publication, the transferosomes were used as a vehicle for antigen (bovine serum albumin and gap junction proteins) and complement-mediated lysis of antigen-sensitized liposomes was assayed. The limit to penetration of the skin by antigen was stated to be 750 daltons. In their study, an immune response was not induced when a solution containing antigen was placed on the skin; only transferosomes were able to induce an immune response. Paul and Cvec (1995) also stated that it is “impossible to immunize epicutaneously with simple peptide or protein solutions”.
Such references explain why our successful use of a molecule like cholera toxin (which is 85,000 daltons) as an antigen or adjuvant in immunization was greeted with surprise by the field because such large molecules were not expected to penetrate the skin and, therefore, would not be expected to induce a specific immune response.
However, we have shown in U.S. applicaiton Ser. No. 08/749,164 (filed Nov. 14, 1996); U.S. application Ser. No. 08/896,085 (filed Jul. 17, 1997); and international application PCT/US97/21
Alving Carl R.
Glenn Gregory M.
Ewoldt G. R.
Morgan & Lewis & Bockius, LLP
The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of
LandOfFree
Use of penetration enhancers and barrier disruption agents... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Use of penetration enhancers and barrier disruption agents..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Use of penetration enhancers and barrier disruption agents... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3197544