4.2 Article

Immunogenicity of WHO-17D and Brazilian 17DD yellow fever vaccines: a randomized trial

期刊

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 671-678

出版社

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-89102004000500009

关键词

Yellow fever vaccine; randomized controlled trials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To compare the immunogenicity of three yellow fever vaccines from WHO- 17D and Brazilian 17DD substrains (different seed-lots). Methods An equivalence trial was carried out involving 1,087 adults in Rio de Janeiro. Vaccines produced by Bio-Manguinhos, Fiocruz (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) were administered following standardized procedures adapted to allow blocked randomized allocation of participants to coded vaccine types (double-blind). Neutralizing yellow fever antibody titters were compared in pre- and post-immunization serum samples. Equivalence was defined as a difference of no more than five percentage points in seroconversion rates, and ratio between Geometric Mean Titters (GMT) higher than 0.67. Results Seroconversion rates were 98% or higher among subjects previously seronegative, and 90% or more of the total cohort of vaccines, including those previously scropositive. Differences in seroconversion ranged from -0.05% to -3.02%. The intensity of the immune response was also very similar across vaccines: 14.5 to 18.6 IU/mL. GMT ratios ranged from 0.78 to 0.93. Taking the placebo group into account, the vaccines explained 93% of seroconversion. Viremia was detected in 2.7% of vaccinated subjects from Day 3 to Day 7. Conclusions The equivalent immunogenicity of yellow fever vaccines from the 17D and 17DD substrains was demonstrated for the first time in placebo-controlled double-blind randomized trial. The study completed the clinical validation process of a new vaccine seed-lot, provided evidence for use of alternative attenuated virus substrains in vaccine production for a major manufacturer, and for the utilization of the 17DD vaccine in other countries.

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

4.2
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