Browsing by Subject "Injections, Intramuscular"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Adenovirus F protein as a delivery vehicle for botulinum B.(BMC Immunol, 2010-07-07) Clapp, Beata; Golden, Sarah; Maddaloni, Massimo; Staats, Herman F; Pascual, David WBACKGROUND: Immunization with recombinant carboxyl-terminal domain of the heavy chain (Hc domain) of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) stimulates protective immunity against native BoNT challenge. Most studies developing a botulism vaccine have focused on the whole Hc; however, since the principal protective epitopes are located within beta-trefoil domain (Hcbetatre), we hypothesize that immunization with the Hcbetatre domain is sufficient to confer protective immunity. In addition, enhancing its uptake subsequent to nasal delivery prompted development of an alternative vaccine strategy, and we hypothesize that the addition of targeting moiety adenovirus 2 fiber protein (Ad2F) may enhance such uptake during vaccination. RESULTS: The Hcbetatre serotype B immunogen was genetically fused to Ad2F (Hcbetatre/B-Ad2F), and its immunogenicity was tested in mice. In combination with the mucosal adjuvant, cholera toxin (CT), enhanced mucosal IgA and serum IgG Ab titers were induced by nasal Hcbetatre-Ad2F relative to Hcbetatre alone; however, similar Ab titers were obtained upon intramuscular immunization. These BoNT/B-specific Abs induced by nasal immunization were generally supported in large part by Th2 cells, as opposed to Hcbetatre-immunized mice that showed more mixed Th1 and Th2 cells. Using a mouse neutralization assay, sera from animals immunized with Hcbetatre and Hcbetatre-Ad2F protected mice against 2.0 LD50. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that Hcbetatre-based immunogens are highly immunogenic, especially when genetically fused to Ad2F, and Ad2F can be exploited as a vaccine delivery platform to the mucosa.Item Open Access Advances in opioid antagonist treatment for opioid addiction.(The Psychiatric clinics of North America, 2012-06) Ling, Walter; Mooney, Larissa; Wu, Li-TzyItem Open Access Extended release naltrexone injection is performed in the majority of opioid dependent patients receiving outpatient induction: a very low dose naltrexone and buprenorphine open label trial.(Drug and alcohol dependence, 2014-05) Mannelli, Paolo; Wu, Li-Tzy; Peindl, Kathleen S; Swartz, Marvin S; Woody, George EThe approval of extended release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX; Vivitrol(®)) has introduced a new option for treating opioid addiction, but studies are needed to identify its place within the spectrum of available therapies. The absence of physiological opioid dependence is a necessary and challenging first step for starting XR-NTX. Outpatient detoxification gives poor results and inpatient detoxification is either unavailable or too brief for the physiological effects of opioids to resolve. Here we present findings from an open label study that tested whether the transition from opioid addiction to XR-NTX can be safely and effectively performed in an outpatient setting using very low dose naltrexone and buprenorphine.Twenty treatment seeking opioid addicted individuals were given increasing doses of naltrexone starting at 0.25mg with decreasing doses of buprenorphine starting at 4 mg during a 7-day outpatient XR-NTX induction procedure. Withdrawal discomfort, craving, drug use, and adverse events were assessed daily until the XR-NTX injection, then weekly over the next month.Fourteen of the 20 participants received XR-NTX and 13 completed weekly assessments. Withdrawal, craving, and opioid or other drug use were significantly lower during induction and after XR-NTX administration compared with baseline, and no serious adverse events were recorded.Outpatient transition to XR-NTX combining upward titration of very low dose naltrexone with downward titration of low dose buprenorphine was safe, well tolerated, and completed by most participants. Further studies with larger numbers of subjects are needed to see if this approach is useful for naltrexone induction.Item Open Access OnabotulinumtoxinA vs Sacral Neuromodulation on Refractory Urgency Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.(JAMA, 2016-10-04) Amundsen, Cindy L; Richter, Holly E; Menefee, Shawn A; Komesu, Yuko M; Arya, Lily A; Gregory, W Thomas; Myers, Deborah L; Zyczynski, Halina M; Vasavada, Sandip; Nolen, Tracy L; Wallace, Dennis; Meikle, Susan FImportance: Women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence are treated with sacral neuromodulation and onabotulinumtoxinA with limited comparative information. Objective: To assess whether onabotulinumtoxinA is superior to sacral neuromodulation in controlling refractory episodes of urgency urinary incontinence. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter open-label randomized trial (February 2012-January 2015) at 9 US medical centers involving 381 women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence. Interventions: Cystoscopic intradetrusor injection of 200 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 192) or sacral neuromodulation (n = 189). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome, change from baseline mean number of daily urgency urinary incontinence episodes over 6 months, was measured with monthly 3-day diaries. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline in urinary symptom scores in the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (SF); range, 0-100, higher scores indicating worse symptoms; Overactive Bladder Satisfaction questionnaire; range, 0-100; includes 5 subscales, higher scores indicating better satisfaction; and adverse events. Results: Of the 364 women (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [11.6] years) in the intention-to-treat population, 190 women in the onabotulinumtoxinA group had a greater reduction in 6-month mean number of episodes of urgency incontinence per day than did the 174 in the sacral neuromodulation group (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14; P = .01). Participants treated with onabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement in the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire SF for symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6; mean difference, 8.1; 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3; P = .002); treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8; mean difference, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.6 to 14.1; P = .01) and treatment endorsement (78.1 vs 67.6; mean difference; 10.4, 95% CI, 4.3 to 16.5; P < .001) than treatment with sacral neuromodulation. There were no differences in convenience (67.6 vs 70.2; mean difference, -2.5; 95% CI, -8.1 to 3.0; P = .36), adverse effects (88.4 vs 85.1; mean difference, 3.3; 95% CI, -1.9 to 8.5; P = .22), and treatment preference (92.% vs 89%; risk difference, -3%; 95% CI, -16% to 10%; P = .49). Urinary tract infections were more frequent in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (35% vs 11%; risk difference, -23%; 95% CI, -33% to -13%; P < .001). The need for self-catheterization was 8% and 2% at 1 and 6 months in the onabotulinumtoxinA group. Neuromodulation device revisions and removals occurred in 3%. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA compared with sacral neuromodulation resulted in a small daily improvement in episodes that although statistically significant is of uncertain clinical importance. In addition, it resulted in a higher risk of urinary tract infections and need for transient self-catheterizations.