4.5 Article

Immunogenicity and safety of intramuscular versus subcutaneous administration of a combined measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine to children 12 to 18 months of age

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 778-785

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1549452

关键词

Measles; mumps; rubella; varicella vaccine; ProQuad; route of administration; IM; SC

资金

  1. Sanofi Pasteur

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This randomized trial conducted in France compared intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SC) administration of two doses of a measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) combination vaccine (ProQuad (R)) administered one month apart to 405 children 12-18 months of age (NCT00402831). The 2-dose regimen of MMRV administered IM was shown to be as immunogenic as the 2-dose regimen administered SC for all antigens 6 weeks post-vaccination for the subjects who were initially seronegative for measles, mumps, rubella, or varicella (lower bounds of the two-sided 95% CIs for the difference in response rates for all antigens greater than -10% [range -2.1 for varicella to -3.0 for mumps]). The antibody response rates for all vaccine antigens 6 weeks after the second dose of MMRV were > 99% in both the IM and SC groups. Fewer subjects in the IM group experienced injection-site AEs compared with the SC group (17.8% and 28.6% post-dose 1, and 20.4% and 29.5% post-dose 2, respectively). From Day 0 to Day 4 post-dose 2, fewer subjects reported erythema and swelling in the IM group than in the SC group (15.4% and 27.0%, and 6.0% and 12.5%, respectively). In both groups, most injection-site AEs started during the first four days after vaccination; their intensity was mainly mild or <= 2.5 cm. The rates of fever were comparable between the two groups after each dose of MMRV. In conclusion, two doses of the MMRV vaccine were highly immunogenic and well tolerated when administered either SC or IM. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00402831

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