4.5 Article

Active opioid use does not attenuate the humoral responses to inactivated influenza vaccine

期刊

VACCINE
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 1363-1369

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.01.051

关键词

Influenza vaccination; Hemagglutination inhibition; Microneutralization; Heroin; Methadone; Opioid users

资金

  1. pilot grant of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (National Institute of Health) [UL1TR00457]
  2. CRIP (Center for Research in Influenza Pathogenesis), an NIAID [HHSN272201400008C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Influenza vaccination is recommended for vulnerable individuals, including active drug users, to prevent influenza complications and decrease influenza spread. Recent studies suggest that opioids negatively regulate immune responses in experimental models, but the extent to which opioid use will affect the humoral responses to influenza vaccine in humans is unknown. This information is critical in maximizing vaccination efforts. Objective: To determine whether there is a difference in antibody response after influenza vaccination in heroin or methadone users compared to control subjects. Methods: We studied active heroin users, subjects on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and subjects that did not use any drugs before and I and 4 weeks after vaccination with trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). We measured hemagglutination inhibition and microneutralization titers, and we compared geometric mean titers (GMT), and rates of seroprotection and seroconversion for each of the vaccine strains among the 3 groups of subjects. Results: Heroin users, subjects on MMT and non-user controls mount a similarly robust serologic response to TIV. GMT and rates of seroprotection and seroconversion were not significantly different among groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that opioid use do not significantly alter antibody responses to influenza vaccine supporting the vaccination effort in these populations. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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