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)
- PLoS One. 2014 Mar 12;9(3):e91366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091366.
- 1. Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
- 2. Biostatistics Research Branch, Division of Clinical Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Background: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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.
Conclusions: 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.
Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00321061.