PLoS ONE (Jan 2014)

Phase I randomized clinical trial of VRC DNA and rAd5 HIV-1 vaccine delivery by intramuscular (i.m.), subcutaneous (s.c.) and intradermal (i.d.) administration (VRC 011).

  • Mary E Enama,
  • Julie E Ledgerwood,
  • Laura Novik,
  • Martha C Nason,
  • Ingelise J Gordon,
  • LaSonji Holman,
  • Robert T Bailer,
  • Mario Roederer,
  • Richard A Koup,
  • John R Mascola,
  • Gary J Nabel,
  • Barney S Graham,
  • VRC 011 Study Team

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091366
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 3
p. e91366

Abstract

Read online

Phase 1 evaluation of the VRC HIV DNA and rAd5 vaccines delivered intramuscularly (i.m.) supported proceeding to a Phase 2 b efficacy study. Here we report comparison of the i.m., subcutaneous (s.c.) and intradermal (i.d.) routes of administration.Sixty subjects were randomized to 6 schedules to evaluate the i.m., s.c. or i.d. route for prime injections. Three schedules included DNA primes (Wks 0,4,8) and 3 schedules included rAd5 prime (Wk0); all included rAd5 i.m. boost (Wk24). DNA vaccine dosage was 4 mg i.m. or s.c., but 0.4 mg i.d., while all rAd5 vaccinations were 1010 PU. All injections were administered by needle and syringe.Overall, 27/30 subjects completed 3 DNA primes; 30/30 subjects completed rAd5 primes. Mild local pruritus (itchiness), superficial skin lesions and injection site nodules were associated with i.d. and s.c., but not i.m. injections. All routes induced T-cell and antibody immune responses after rAd5 boosting. Overall, >95% had Env antibody and >80% had Env T-cell responses.The pattern of local reactogenicity following i.d. and s.c. injections differed from i.m. injections but all routes were well-tolerated. There was no evidence of an immunogenicity advantage following s.c. or i.d. delivery, supporting i.m. delivery as the preferred route of administration.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00321061.