Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2022;7(3):e155655. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.155655.
Abstract
Background Adenovirus-vectored (Ad-vectored) vaccines are typically administered via i.m. injection to humans and are incapable of inducing respiratory mucosal immunity. However, aerosol delivery of Ad-vectored vaccines remains poorly characterized, and its ability to induce mucosal immunity in humans is unknown. This phase Ib trial evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of human serotype-5 Ad-vectored tuberculosis (TB) vaccine (AdHu5Ag85A) delivered to humans via inhaled aerosol or i.m. injection.Methods Thirty-one healthy, previously BCG-vaccinated adults were enrolled. AdHu5Ag85A was administered by single-dose aerosol using Aeroneb Solo Nebulizer or by i.m. injection. The study consisted of the low-dose (LD) aerosol, high-dose (HD) aerosol, and i.m. groups. The adverse events were assessed at various times after vaccination. Immunogenicity data were collected from the peripheral blood and bronchoalveolar lavage samples at baseline, as well as at select time points after vaccination.Results The nebulized aerosol droplets were < 5.39 μm in size. Both LD and HD of AdHu5Ag85A administered by aerosol inhalation and i.m. injection were safe and well tolerated. Both aerosol doses, particularly LD, but not i.m., vaccination markedly induced airway tissue–resident memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells of polyfunctionality. While as expected, i.m. vaccination induced Ag85A-specific T cell responses in the blood, the LD aerosol vaccination also elicited such T cells in the blood. Furthermore, the LD aerosol vaccination induced persisting transcriptional changes in alveolar macrophages.Conclusion Inhaled aerosol delivery of Ad-vectored vaccine is a safe and superior way to elicit respiratory mucosal immunity. This study warrants further development of aerosol vaccine strategies against respiratory pathogens, including TB and COVID-19.Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT02337270.Funding The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada funded this work.
Authors
Mangalakumari Jeyanathan, Dominik K. Fritz, Sam Afkhami, Emilio Aguirre, Karen J. Howie, Anna Zganiacz, Anna Dvorkin-Gheva, Michael R. Thompson, Richard F. Silver, Ruth P. Cusack, Brian D. Lichty, Paul M. O’Byrne, Martin Kolb, Maria Fe C. Medina, Myrna B. Dolovich, Imran Satia, Gail M. Gauvreau, Zhou Xing, Fiona Smaill
Usage data is cumulative from December 2024 through December 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,800 | 634 |
| 165 | 142 | |
| Figure | 433 | 3 |
| Table | 237 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 151 | 25 |
| Citation downloads | 134 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,920 | 804 |
| Total Views | 3,724 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
