4.5 Article

Safety and immunogenicity of a trivalent, inactivated, mammalian cell culture-derived influenza vaccine in healthy adults, seniors, and children

期刊

VACCINE
卷 20, 期 7-8, 页码 1240-1247

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00428-5

关键词

influenza vaccine; cell culture; influenza

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed randomized, double-blind, controlled trials to assess the safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated, Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK)-derived cell line produced influenza vaccine in healthy adults (19-50 years), children (3-12 years) and the elderly (greater than or equal to65 years). We studied three lots of cell culture-derived vaccine and one lot of licensed egg-derived vaccine in healthy adults (n = 462), two lots of cell culture-derived vaccine and one lot of egg-derived vaccine in seniors (n = 269), and one lot of each vaccine in children (n = 209). Adverse events were collected during the first 3 days post-immunization; serum was collected before and I month after immunization. Rates of local and system adverse reactions were similar with both vaccines. An injection site adverse event rated at least moderate severity was reported by 21.9% of children who received the egg-derived vaccine and 25.0% of those who received the cell culture-derived vaccine. In healthy adults the proportions were 12.1 and 15.3%, respectively and 6.7 and 6.3%, respectively in seniors. Systemic events of at least moderate severity were 12.4 and 12.5% in children, 19.8 and 13.6% in healthy adults, and 14.1 and 9.7% in seniors; none of these differences were statistically significant. The antibody response against all three viruses was similar between the two vaccines. From 83 to 100% of children, healthy adults and seniors achieved hemagglutination inhibition titers in excess of 40 post-immunization. We conclude that the cell culture-derived vaccine was safe and immunogenic in children, healthy adults and seniors. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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