Evaluation of the safety & performance of 2 intradermal safety devices
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A clinical investigation to evaluate the safety and performance of two Star intradermal safety device (IDSD) syringes in healthy adult volunteers
IRAS ID
157893
Contact name
David Lewis
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Surrey
Research summary
Several vaccinations are administered by the intradermal (ID) method where the vaccine is injected between layers of skin. The current technique required to do this can be difficult to learn and perform accurately, is slower to deliver than subcutaneous or intramuscular injections, and there is a risk that the injection will be given to too-deep skin layers or to underlying tissues, which might change the immune response. There is increasing interest in using ID administration for vaccines as it may be possible to achieve the same immune response with a smaller dose of vaccine. This could increase access to vaccines that are expensive or are only available in small quantities and therefore could have global health benefit for vaccine programs for diseases such as yellow fever and polio.
Because of the potential global-health benefits of being able to give ID injections of vaccines easily, quickly and with relatively little training or experience, several novel devices are currently being developed to allow easy ID administration. Star Syringe have developed two novel intradermal safety devices that differ only in the length of the needle used. The current study will assess how the two new devices perform, compared to the traditional Mantoux test, using injections of saline into the upper arm. Twenty volunteers (18-60 years, male and female) will be recruited and attend a screening visit (1), an injection visit (2a) and have a follow up telephone call (2b). At the injection visit they will receive 3 injections in each arm (Mantoux and 2 device injections) and measurements will be performed.
A subset of volunteers will be invited back to attend an additional visit (3a) which will be a repeat of visit 2 but with an ultrasound image taken of each injection site. There will be a follow up telephone call 24 hours later (3b).
REC name
London - Dulwich Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/LO/1200
Date of REC Opinion
23 Jul 2014
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion