Cancer can eventually develop randomly in anyone at any age. However, characteristic to most cancer cases is a loss of identity in the affected cells. At the birth of each cell, the cell is recognized as “self” by the body’s defense against illness- the immune system. However, if cells develop into a cancer cell line in their lifetime, they ultimately lose their “self-ness” and begin to develop new proteins, now known as novel antigens, that are no longer seen as “self” by the body. This feature makes cancer cells an optimal target for treatment via elimination by the immune system. By arming and modulating the immune system through immunotherapy, it is possible to assist the immune system in the elimination and prevention of cancer. In this review, we will discuss all the current viable treatments of cancer, and why immunotherapy and vaccination maybe our best bets for future prevention and treatment.

Tuberculosis is a major world public health problem. In 2011, approximately 30% of the world’s population was thought to be infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, with more than 1 million deaths attributed to this organism.

BCG vaccine, which contains a live attenuated Mycobacterium bovis strain, is part of the vaccination schedule of several countries worldwide since 1960. Because BCG vaccine has been considered as part of efforts to control tuberculosis, billion doses were applied and it remains one of the most widely used of all current vaccines worldwide. So, million newborns are vaccinated every year through national childhood immunization programs, because in several countries around the world it is administered to all children during the neonatal period.

An important aspect that should be further considered in any strategy meant to increase the adhesion rate to vaccinations is the role of doctors in Primary Health Care, particularly in the vaccination against influenza, which in many countries is administered mainly by them. To improve vaccination coverage it is necessary to act on several factors: the education of the population with direct information to parents and relatives of the patients to be vaccinated, by means of State intervention with the introduction of compulsory vaccination for groups at risk, of cost reduction or the offer of free vaccinations (something not always possible in some parts of the world). Proper information to people about the risks and the benefits of vaccination is still the “gold standard” of medical intervention. It is often associated to systems of “call-reminder”, which are meant to assist the individual to become aware of when and how to respond to the call of vaccination in the various stages of life. Among these useful tools are now absolutely considered e-mails, SMS, traditional letters, social networks. The results, of course, are not the same at all ages and for all vaccinations.

Background: In 2014, Manitoba introduced legislation authorizing pharmacists to administer four publicly funded vaccines to patients seven years of age and older. As part of an expanded scope of practice initiative, pharmacists could administer the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine, Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine, Pneumococcal Polysaccharide (PPV23) vaccine, and seasonal influenza (FLU) vaccine. Pharmacists began administering the four vaccines as of September 1, 2014, three weeks before the influenza immunization campaign began. This study assesses the initial impact that pharmacists had on the population uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccine as well as the other three publicly funded vaccines.

Methods: The data for this study were obtained from Manitoba Immunization Monitoring System (MIMS), the population-based and province-wide immunization registry. We analyzed immunizations of the four publicly funded vaccines administered by all immunization providers in Manitoba during two periods: September 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014 (2013-2014) and September 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015 (2014-2015).

Results: Between September 1, 2014 and January 31, 2015, within the first few months after pharmacists in Manitoba began immunizing patients, they administered 44,220 doses of HPV, Tdap, PPV23 and FLU in total. They contributed significantly to the FLU immunization program, and were the third largest provider, especially for urban residents and patients aged 45 and older. Overall, they administered 43,638 FLU doses (15% of the provincial total). The number of FLU immunizations provided by physicians decreased by 32,573 doses; however, physicians administered more immunizations to the six months to five years age group in 2014-2015 (12,445) than in 2013-2014 (11,969).

Conclusion: Pharmacists’ participation in Manitoba’s publicly funded immunization program has been well accepted in Manitoba. However, the provider expansion did not increase the uptake of the FLU vaccine in the 2014-2015 season. Regardless, the participation of pharmacists in the provincial immunization program increases access to immunizations, and could reduce pressure on other primary care providers. This could potentially decrease wait times and increase availability of appointments for patients with more serious medical issues. Further studies are required.

Objective: We assessed two novel and cost-effective DNA delivery methods as alternatives for our well established gene gun delivery system, using a preclinical rabbit papillomavirus model.

Methods: HLA-A2.1 transgenic rabbits were immunized with CRPVE1ep1-5 or HPV16E7/82-90 epitope DNA vaccines via gene gun, tattoo gun or microneedle and challenged with either wild type CRPV or CRPV containing HPV16E7/82-90. The tumor outgrowth were monitored and recorded weekly. In vivo killing was conducted in tattoo gun and microneedle vaccinated animals.

Results: Tattoo gun delivery provided comparable protection with both DNA vaccines when compared with gene gun. Microneedle provided similar protection as tattoo gun. Specific in vivo killing was detected in CRPVE1ep1-5 DNA vaccinated animals by both tattoo gun and microneedle.

Conclusion: Both tattoo gun and microneedle can be used as alternatives for the gene gun for DNA vaccination. These two methods are more cost-effective and microneedle minimized pain in animals.