4.8 Article

Comparative Efficacy of Inactivated and Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 361, 期 13, 页码 1260-1267

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0808652

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sanofi Pasteur

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The efficacy of influenza vaccines may vary from year to year, depending on a variety of factors, and may differ for inactivated and live attenuated vaccines. Methods We carried out a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of licensed inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines in healthy adults during the 2007-2008 influenza season and estimated the absolute and relative efficacies of the two vaccines. Results A total of 1952 subjects were enrolled and received study vaccines in the fall of 2007. Influenza activity occurred from January through April 2008, with the circulation of influenza types A (H3N2) ( about 90%) and B (about 9%). Absolute efficacy against both types of influenza, as measured by isolating the virus in culture, identifying it on real-time polymerase-chain-reaction assay, or both, was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46 to 81) for the inactivated vaccine and 36% (95% CI, 0 to 59) for the live attenuated vaccine. In terms of relative efficacy, there was a 50% (95% CI, 20 to 69) reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza among subjects who received inactivated vaccine as compared with those given live attenuated vaccine. The absolute efficacy against the influenza A virus was 72% ( 95% CI, 49 to 84) for the inactivated vaccine and 29% (95% CI, -14 to 55) for the live attenuated vaccine, with a relative efficacy of 60% (95% CI, 33 to 77) for the inactivated vaccine. Conclusions In the 2007-2008 season, the inactivated vaccine was efficacious in preventing laboratory-confirmed symptomatic influenza A (predominately H3N2) in healthy adults. The live attenuated vaccine also prevented influenza illnesses but was less efficacious. (ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT00538512.)

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

4.8
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