Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18003811›Full record

Trial reportClinical and vaccine immunology : CVI2008

Safety and immunogenicity of two influenza virus subunit vaccines, with or without MF59 adjuvant, administered to human immunodeficiency virus type 1-seropositive and -seronegative adults.

P Durando, D Fenoglio, A Boschini, F Ansaldi, G Icardi, L Sticchi, A Renzoni, P Fabbri, A Ferrera, A Parodi and 8 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

P DurandoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy. durando@unige.it
D Fenoglio
A Boschini
F Ansaldi
G Icardi
L Sticchi
A Renzoni
P Fabbri
A Ferrera
A Parodi
B Bruzzone
G Gabutti
A Podda
G Del Giudice
E Fragapane
F Indiveri
P Crovari
R Gasparini
University of Genoa · ITUniversity of Ferrara · ITDepartment of Medical Sciences · BYNovartis (Italy) · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare both the safety and tolerability and the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses for two influenza virus subunit vaccines, one with MF59 adjuvant (Fluad) and one without an adjuvant (Agrippal), in healthy and in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected adult individuals. To achieve this aim, an open, randomized, comparative clinical trial was performed during the 2005-2006 season. A total of 256 subjects were enrolled to receive one dose of vaccine intramuscularly. Blood samples were taken at the time of vaccination and at 1 and 3 months postvaccination. A good humoral antibody response was detected for both vaccines, meeting all the criteria of the Committee for Medical Products for Human Use. After Beyer's correction for prevaccination status, Fluad exhibited better immunogenicity than Agrippal, as shown from the analysis of the geometric mean titers, with significant differences for some virus strains; however, no definitive conclusions on the clinical significance of such results can be drawn, because the method used to estimate antibody response is currently nonstandard for influenza virus vaccines. Significant induction of an antigen-specific CD4+ T-lymphocyte proliferative response was detected at all time points after immunization, for both the vaccines, among HIV-1-seronegative subjects. This was different from what was observed for HIV-1-infected individuals. In this group, significance was not reached at 30 days postvaccination (T30) for those immunized with Agrippal. Also when data were compared between treatment groups, a clear difference in the response at T30 was observed in favor of Fluad (P = 0.0002). The safety profiles of both vaccines were excellent. For HIV-1-infected individuals, no significant changes either in viremia or in the CD4+ cell count were observed at any time point. The results showed good safety and immunogenicity for both vaccines under study for both uninfected and HIV-1-infected adults, confirming current recommendations for immunization of this high-risk category.

Indexed as

Adjuvants, ImmunologicAdolescentAdultAgedAntibodies, ViralCD4 Lymphocyte CountCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesCell ProliferationCells, CulturedFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesInjections, IntramuscularMaleAdjuvants, ImmunologicAntibodies, ViralInfluenza VaccinesMF59 oil emulsionPolysorbatesSqualeneVaccines, Subunit

Identifiers

PMID18003811
PMCPMC2238067
OpenAlexW1991179786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.