Trial reportPloS one2020
Acceptability and tolerability of repeated intramuscular electroporation of Multi-antigenic HIV (HIVMAG) DNA vaccine among healthy African participants in a phase 1 randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01496989 (A Phase 1 Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate Safety and Immunogenicity of a Multiantigen HIV), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
A Phase 1 Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate Safety and Immunogenicity of a Multiantigen HIV (HIV-MAG) pDNA Vaccine With or Without Human IL-12 pDNA GENEVAX® IL-12) and Ad35-GRIN/ENV Vaccine in HIV-Uninfected, Healthy Volunteers
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Focusing HIV-1 Gag T cell responses to highly conserved regions by DNA vaccination in HVTN 119.JCI insight · 2024Trial
- Trial
- DNA Immunotherapy (INO-3107) Results in Long-Term Surgery Reduction in RRP.The Laryngoscope · 2025Observational
- A Review on the Mechanisms, Applications, and Clinical Trials of Advanced Technologies in the Transdermal Drug Delivery System.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Review
- Improved efficacy of therapeutic HPV DNA vaccine using intramuscular injection with electroporation compared to conventional needle and needle-free jet injector methods.Cell & bioscience · 2024Article
- Tolerability of a piezoelectric microneedle electroporator in human subjects.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Article
- Virus-like particle vaccine displaying an external, membrane adjacent MUC16 epitope elicits ovarian cancer-reactive antibodies.Journal of ovarian research · 2024Article
- Safety and Immunogenicity of anVaccines · 2023Article
- What We Learned about the Feasibility of Gene Electrotransfer for Vaccination on a Model of COVID-19 Vaccine.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Electroporation of Small Interfering RNAs into Tibialis Anterior Muscles of Mice.Bio-protocol · 2022Article
- Gene delivery in adherent and suspension cells using the combined physical methods.Cytotechnology · 2022Article
- The impact of impaired DNA mobility on gene electrotransfer efficiency: analysis in 3D model.Biomedical engineering online · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIntramuscular electroporation (IM/EP) is a vaccine delivery technique that improves the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines. We evaluated the acceptability and tolerability of electroporation among healthy African study participants.
methodsForty-five participants were administered a DNA vaccine (HIV-MAG) or placebo by electroporation at three visits occurring at four week-intervals. At the end of each visit, participants were asked to rate pain at four times: (1) when the device was placed on the skin and vaccine injected, before the electrical stimulation, (2) at the time of electrical stimulation and muscle contraction, and (3) at 10 minutes and (4) 30 minutes after the procedure was completed. For analyses, pain level was dichotomized as either "acceptable" (none/slight/uncomfortable) or "too much" (Intense, severe, and very severe) and examined over time using repeated measures models. Optional brief comments made by participants were summarized anecdotally.
resultsAll 45 participants completed all three vaccination visits; none withdrew from the study due to the electroporation procedure. Most (76%) reported pain levels as acceptable at every time point across all vaccination visits. The majority of "unacceptable" pain was reported at the time of electrical stimulation. The majority of the participants (97%) commented that they preferred electroporation to standard injection.
conclusionRepeated intramuscular electroporation for vaccine delivery was found to be acceptable and feasible among healthy African HIV vaccine trial participants. The majority of participants reported an acceptable pain level at all vaccination time points. Further investigation may be warranted into the value of EP to improve immunization outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01496989.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.