4.5 Review

Product review on the JE vaccine IXIARO

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 411-420

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/21645515.2014.983412

关键词

Japanese encephalitis virus; inactivated vaccine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Japanese encephalitis virus, as the most important vaccine-preventable cause of viral encephalitis in Asia, is estimated to cause over 68,000 clinical cases yearly. In endemic areas, most Japanese encephalitis infections occur in children younger than 10 y and clinical manifestation of this disease is critical, because there is no effective treatment available. As JEV infections are regarded as one of the most serious viral causes of encephalitis and mass immunization programmes are generally recommended for residents in endemic areas, a safe and effective JEV vaccine was needed to protect them as well as others at risk. Due to the safety concerns with the mouse brain derived vaccine, second generation vaccines against JE produced in cell culture like Vero cells were developed. IXIARO (R) is a purified, inactivated aluminum-adjuvanted JE vaccine, based on the SA14-14-2 virus strain, and is available in North America, Europe, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Israel as well as in Australia & New Zealand (as JESPECT (R)). The safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profile of IXIARO (R) is well established through a number of clinical studies comparing IXIARO (R) with placebo as well as mouse brain derived vaccine. Recent data show that the global incidence of JE remains substantial, especially young children in endemic areas are most susceptible. As vaccination is the most feasible, reliable and cost effective tool for JE control, IXIARO (R) with confirmed excellent safety profile is highly recommendable, in particular for vaccination of children at risk. The European Commission as well as the FDA approved the extension of indication of IXIARO (R) to the pediatric segment (2 months of age and older) based on these data.

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