Cellular Immune Responses Induced with Dose-Sparing Intradermal Administration of HIV Vaccine to HIV-Uninfected Volunteers in the ANRS VAC16 Trial
2007

HIV Vaccine Study: Comparing Intradermal and Intramuscular Administration

Sample size: 68 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Launay Odile, Durier Christine, Desaint Corinne, Silbermann Benjamin, Jackson Angela, Pialoux Gilles, Bonnet Bénédicte, Poizot-Martin Isabelle, Gonzalez-Canali Gustavo, Cuzin Lise, Figuereido Suzanne, Surenaud Mathieu, Hamouda Nadine Ben, Gahery Hanne, Choppin Jeannine, Salmon Dominique, Guérin Corinne, Villada Isabelle Bourgault, Guillet Jean-Gérard

Primary Institution: Université Paris Descartes, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France

Hypothesis

Does intradermal administration of an HIV vaccine induce similar immune responses compared to intramuscular administration?

Conclusion

Intradermal administration of the HIV vaccine was well tolerated and induced similar immune responses as the intramuscular route while using a smaller dose.

Supporting Evidence

  • No severe adverse events were reported during the study.
  • Local pain was significantly more frequent after intramuscular injection.
  • Induced CD8+ T-cell responses were similar between both administration routes.
  • Immunization route influenced the type of T-cells induced.

Takeaway

This study tested a new way to give an HIV vaccine by injecting it into the skin instead of the muscle, and it worked just as well with less medicine.

Methodology

A randomized, open-label trial with 68 healthy volunteers receiving either intradermal or intramuscular injections of the HIV vaccine over 24 weeks.

Potential Biases

Potential bias in self-reported adverse events and the open-label design.

Limitations

The study was not powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the intradermal route compared to the intramuscular route.

Participant Demographics

Participants were healthy, HIV-uninfected adults aged 21 to 55, with a mix of males and females.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.12

Confidence Interval

95% CI for adverse events

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pone.0000725

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication