Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26121679›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

HIV-DNA Given with or without Intradermal Electroporation Is Safe and Highly Immunogenic in Healthy Swedish HIV-1 DNA/MVA Vaccinees: A Phase I Randomized Trial.

Charlotta Nilsson, Bo Hejdeman, Karina Godoy-Ramirez, Teghesti Tecleab, Gabriella Scarlatti, Andreas Bråve, Patricia L Earl, Richard R Stout, Merlin L Robb, Robin J Shattock and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The Current Status of COVID-19 Vaccines.Frontiers in genome editing · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Self-Amplifying RNA Vaccines Give Equivalent Protection against Influenza to mRNA Vaccines but at Much Lower Doses.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Charlotta NilssonDepartment of Microbiology, Public Health Agency of Sweden, Solna, Sweden; Department of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Bo HejdemanVenhälsan, Department of Education and Clinical Research, Karolinska Institutet, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karina Godoy-RamirezDepartment of Microbiology, Public Health Agency of Sweden, Solna, Sweden.
Teghesti TecleabDepartment of Microbiology, Public Health Agency of Sweden, Solna, Sweden.
Gabriella ScarlattiViral Evolution and Transmission Unit, Division of Immunology, Transplantation and infectious diseases, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Andreas BråveDepartment of Microbiology, Public Health Agency of Sweden, Solna, Sweden.
Patricia L EarlNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD, United States of America.
Richard R StoutBioject Inc., Tigard, Oregon, United States of America.
Merlin L RobbMilitary HIV Research Program, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Robin J ShattockImperial College London, Department of Infectious Diseases, Division of Medicine, Norfolk Place, London, United Kingdom.
Gunnel BiberfeldDepartment of Microbiology, Public Health Agency of Sweden, Solna, Sweden; Department of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Eric SandströmVenhälsan, Department of Education and Clinical Research, Karolinska Institutet, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Britta WahrenDepartment of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Public Health Agency of Sweden · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEImperial College London · GBIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases · USStockholm South General Hospital · SEWalter Reed Army Institute of Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe compared safety and immunogenicity of intradermal (ID) vaccination with and without electroporation (EP) in a phase I randomized placebo-controlled trial of an HIV-DNA prime HIV-MVA boost vaccine in healthy Swedish volunteers.

methodsHIV-DNA plasmids encoding HIV-1 genes gp160 subtypes A, B and C; Rev B; Gag A and B and RTmut B were given ID at weeks 0, 6 and 12 in a dose of 0.6 mg. Twenty-five volunteers received vaccine using a needle-free device (ZetaJet) with (n=16) or without (n=9) ID EP (Dermavax). Five volunteers were placebo recipients. Boosting with recombinant MVA-CMDR expressing HIV-1 Env, Gag, Pol of CRF01_AE (HIV-MVA) or placebo was performed at weeks 24 and 40. Nine of the vaccinees received a subtype C CN54 gp140 protein boost together with HIV-MVA.

resultsThe ID/EP delivery was very well tolerated. After three HIV-DNA immunizations, no statistically significant difference was seen in the IFN-γ ELISpot response rate to Gag between HIV-DNA ID/EP recipients (5/15, 33%) and HIV-DNA ID recipients (1/7, 14%, p=0.6158). The first HIV-MVA or HIV-MVA+gp140 vaccination increased the IFN-γ ELISpot response rate to 18/19 (95%). CD4+ and/or CD8+ T cell responses to Gag or Env were demonstrable in 94% of vaccinees. A balanced CD4+ and CD8+ T cell response was noted, with 78% and 71% responders, respectively. IFN-γ and IL-2 dominated the CD4+ T cell response to Gag and Env. The CD8+ response to Gag was broader with expression of IFN-γ, IL-2, MIP-1β and/or CD107. No differences were seen between DNA vaccine groups. Binding antibodies were induced after the second HIV-MVA+/-gp140 in 93% of vaccinees to subtype C Env, with the highest titers among EP/gp140 recipients.

conclusionIntradermal electroporation of HIV-DNA was well tolerated. Strong cell- and antibody-mediated immune responses were elicited by the HIV-DNA prime and HIV-MVA boosting regimen, with or without intradermal electroporation use.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 60284968.

Indexed as

ElectroporationAdultAIDS VaccinesAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibody-Dependent Cell CytotoxicityEnzyme-Linked Immunospot AssayFemaleHealthy VolunteersHIV-1HIV AntibodiesHIV InfectionsHumansImmunity, CellularImmunity, HumoralInjections, IntradermalInterferon-gammaAIDS VaccinesAntibodies, NeutralizingHIV AntibodiesInterferon-gammaVaccines, DNA

Identifiers

PMID26121679
PMCPMC4486388
OpenAlexW819351050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.