4.5 Article

Tolerability of intramuscular and intradermal delivery by CELLECTRA® adaptive constant current electroporation device in healthy volunteers

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 2246-2252

出版社

LANDES BIOSCIENCE
DOI: 10.4161/hv.24702

关键词

electroporation; vaccination; intramuscular; intradermal; visual analog scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DNA vaccines are being developed as a potentially safe and effective immunization platform. However, translation of DNA vaccines into a clinical setting has produced results that have fallen short of those generated in a preclinical setting. Various strategies are being developed to address this lack of potency, including improvements in delivery methods. Electroporation (EP) creates transient increases in cell membrane permeability, thus enhancing DNA uptake and leading to a more robust immune response. Here, we report on the safety and tolerability of delivering sterile saline via intramuscular (IM) or intradermal (ID) injection followed by in vivo electroporation using the CELLECTRA (R) adaptive constant current device in healthy adults from two open-label studies. Pain, as assessed by VAS, was highest immediately after EP but diminishes by about 50% within 5 min. Mean VAS scores appear to correlate with the amount of energy delivered and depth of needle insertion, especially for intramuscular EP. Mean scores did not exceed 7 out of 10 or 3 out of 10 for IM and ID EP, respectively. The majority of adverse events included mild to moderate injection site reactions that resolved within one day. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported during the course of either study. Overall, injection followed by EP with the CELLECTRA (R) device was well-tolerated and no significant safety concerns were identified. These studies support the further development of electroporation as a vaccine delivery method to enhance immunogenicity, particularly for diseases in which traditional vaccination approaches are ineffective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据