4.5 Article

Comprehensive safety assessment of a human inactivated diploid enterovirus 71 vaccine based on a phase III clinical trial

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 922-930

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1115934

关键词

enterovirus 71; hand-foot-mouth disease; safety analysis; vaccine

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81273176, 81302509]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human enterovirus 71 (EV71) is a causative agent of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD). In a previous phase III trial in children, a human diploid cell-based inactivated EV71 vaccine elicited EV71 specific immune responses and protection against EV71 associated HFMD. This study aimed to assess the factors influencing the severity of adverse events observed in this previous trial. This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial of a human diploid vaccine carried out in 12,000 children in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01569581). Solicited events were recorded for 7days and unsolicited events were reported for 28days after each injection. Age trend analysis of adverse reaction was conducted in each treatment group. Multiple logistic regression models were built to identify factors influencing the severity of adverse reactions. Fewer solicited adverse reactions were observed in older participants within the first 7days after vaccination (P < 0.0001), except local pain and pruritus. More severe adverse reactions were observed after the initial injection than after the booster injection. Serious cold or respiratory tract infections (RTI) were observed more often in children aged 6-36 months than in older children. Only the severity of local swelling was associated with body mass index. Children with throat discomfort before injection had a higher risk of serious cold or RTI. These results indicated that the human diploid cell-based vaccine achieved a satisfactory safety profile.

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