Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38697170›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2024

A measles and rubella vaccine microneedle patch in The Gambia: a phase 1/2, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, age de-escalation trial.

Ikechukwu Adigweme, Mohammed Yisa, Michael Ooko, Edem Akpalu, Andrew Bruce, Simon Donkor, Lamin B Jarju, Baba Danso, Anthony Mendy, David Jeffries and 12 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Global vaccine development.Nature medicine · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Microneedles: Selected Applications for Pediatrics.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Ikechukwu AdigwemeVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Mohammed YisaVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Michael OokoVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Edem AkpaluVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Andrew BruceVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Simon DonkorVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Lamin B JarjuVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Baba DansoVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Anthony MendyVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
David JeffriesVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Anne Segonds-PichonVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Abdoulie NjieVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia.
Stephen CrookeDivision of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Elina El-BadryDivision of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Hilary JohnstoneHJ-Clinical Trial Consultancy, George, South Africa.
Michael RoyalsMicron Biomedical, Atlanta, GA, USA.
James L GoodsonGlobal Immunization Division, Global Health Center, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Mark R PrausnitzMicron Biomedical, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Devin V McAllisterMicron Biomedical, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Paul A RotaDivision of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sebastien HenryMicron Biomedical, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ed ClarkeVaccines and Immunity Theme, Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Banjul, The Gambia. Electronic address: ed.clarke@lshtm.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroneedle patches (MNPs) have been ranked as the highest global priority innovation for overcoming immunisation barriers in low-income and middle-income countries. This trial aimed to provide the first data on the tolerability, safety, and immunogenicity of a measles and rubella vaccine (MRV)-MNP in children.

methodsThis single-centre, phase 1/2, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, age de-escalation trial was conducted in The Gambia. To be eligible, all participants had to be healthy according to prespecified criteria, aged 18-40 years for the adult cohort, 15-18 months for toddlers, or 9-10 months for infants, and to be available for visits throughout the follow-up period. The three age cohorts were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio (adults) or 1:1 ratio (toddlers and infants) to receive either an MRV-MNP (Micron Biomedical, Atlanta, GA, USA) and a placebo (0·9% sodium chloride) subcutaneous injection, or a placebo-MNP and an MRV subcutaneous injection (MRV-SC; Serum Institute of India, Pune, India). Unmasked staff ransomly assigned the participants using an online application, and they prepared visually identical preparations of the MRV-MNP or placebo-MNP and MRV-SC or placebo-SC, but were not involved in collecting endpoint data. Staff administering the study interventions, participants, parents, and study staff assessing trial endpoints were masked to treatment allocation. The safety population consists of all vaccinated participants, and analysis was conducted according to route of MRV administration, irrespective of subsequent protocol deviations. The immunogenicity population consisted of all vaccinated participants who had a baseline and day 42 visit result available, and who had no protocol deviations considered to substantially affect the immunogenicity endpoints. Solicited local and systemic adverse events were collected for 14 days following vaccination. Unsolicited adverse events were collected to day 180. Age de-escalation between cohorts was based on the review of the safety data to day 14 by an independent data monitoring committee. Serum neutralising antibodies to measles and rubella were measured at baseline, day 42, and day 180. Analysis was descriptive and included safety events, seroprotection and seroconversion rates, and geometric mean antibody concentrations. The trial was registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR202008836432905, and is complete.

findingsRecruitment took place between May 18, 2021, and May 27, 2022. 45 adults, 120 toddlers, and 120 infants were randomly allocated and vaccinated. There were no safety concerns in the first 14 days following vaccination in either adults or toddlers, and age de-escalation proceeded accordingly. In infants, 93% (52/56; 95% CI 83·0-97·2) seroconverted to measles and 100% (58/58; 93·8-100) seroconverted to rubella following MRV-MNP administration, while 90% (52/58; 79·2-95·2) and 100% (59/59; 93·9-100) seroconverted to measles and rubella respectively, following MRV-SC. Induration at the MRV-MNP application site was the most frequent local reaction occurring in 46 (77%) of 60 toddlers and 39 (65%) of 60 infants. Related unsolicited adverse events, most commonly discolouration at the application site, were reported in 35 (58%) of 60 toddlers and 57 (95%) of 60 infants that had received the MRV-MNP. All local reactions were mild. There were no related severe or serious adverse events.

interpretationThe safety and immunogenicity data support the accelerated development of the MRV-MNP.

fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

Measles VaccineRubellaRubella VaccineAdolescentAdultAntibodies, ViralDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGambiaHumansInfantMaleMeaslesNeedlesYoung AdultAntibodies, ViralMeasles VaccineRubella Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID38697170
PMCPMC11099471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.