4.7 Article

Immunogenicity and Safety of Intradermal Influenza Vaccination in Healthy Older Adults

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 50, 期 10, 页码 1331-1338

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/652144

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research and Development Medical Research Service, Department of Veterans Affairs
  2. World Health Organization
  3. Fondation Merieux entitled Intradermal Immunization: An Alternative Route for Vaccine Administration in Annecy, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Influenza vaccine immunogenicity is suboptimal in older persons. Intradermal (ID) vaccination may be a promising alternative to intramuscular (IM) vaccination. Methods. This randomized trial compared the immunogenicity of 60% dose ID influenza vaccination to standard IM vaccination of full-dose or 60% dose vaccine. Pre- and postvaccination measurements in the hemagglutination inhibition antibody titer were compared. Participants who received reduced-dose vaccine were revaccinated with full-dose IM vaccine. Results. 257 healthy adults aged >= 65 years received 1 of the following trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines: standard-dose (15 mu g each of 3 hemagglutinin vaccine antigens in 0.5 mL) IM injection, reduced-dose (9 mu g, 0.3 mL) IM injection, reduced-dose ( 9 mu g, 0.3 mL) ID injection, or 2 reduced-dose (4.5 mu g, 0.15 mL) ID injections. Respective seroprotection rates were 65.6%, 57.8%, 68.9%, and 67.2% against A/H1N1; 76.6%, 75.0%, 75.4%, and 75.0% against A/H3N2; and 26.6%, 17.2%, 16.4%, and 25.0% against influenza B. Subsequent full-dose IM vaccination of participants randomized to reduced-dose vaccine by either IM or ID routes did not improve seroprotection rates. Local reactions of redness, swelling, and itching were significantly more frequent among recipients of ID injections. Conclusion. Influenza vaccine at 60% dose by either IM or ID route elicited antibody responses generally similar to full-dose IM vaccination among healthy elderly persons (ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00504231).

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