4.7 Article

Immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent versus trivalent inactivated subunit influenza vaccine in children and adolescents: A phase III randomized study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2019.12.010

关键词

Quadrivalent influenza vaccine; Children; Immunogenicity; Safety; Virus neutralization; Neuraminidase inhibition

资金

  1. Abbott Biologicals B.V.
  2. Mylan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To analyse the immunogenicity and safety of inactivated subunit quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) versus trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) in children and adolescents 3-17 years of age. Methods: In this phase III, multicentre, double-blind study, 1200 subjects were randomized to receive QIV (n = 402), TIV with the B-strain of the Victoria lineage (n = 404), or TIV with the B-strain of the Yamagata lineage (n = 394). The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of QIV to TIV for immunogenicity against shared influenza strains, based on post-vaccination hemagglutinin inhibition (HI) titres. Secondary objectives were to show superiority of QIV to TIV for immunogenicity against alternate-lineage B-strains, and to further characterize the immune response by analysing virus neutralization and neuraminidase inhibition titres. Reactogenicity and safety were also compared post-vaccination. Results: QIV elicited a non-inferior response for shared strains (upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals for the HI geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of TIV/QIV < 1.5) and a superior response for alternate-lineage B-strains (HI GMRs of TIV/QIV < 1.0; p < 0.0001) versus TIV. Reporting rates of local and systemic adverse reactions were similar between vaccine arms. Conclusions: QIV had comparable immunogenicity to TIV for shared strains and superior immunogenicity to the alternate-lineage B-strains in TIV. Safety and tolerability profiles were comparable. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

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

4.7
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