Trial reportHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2012
Phase 4 randomized trial of intradermal low-antigen-content inactivated influenza vaccine versus standard-dose intramuscular vaccine in HIV-1-infected adults.
Trial report in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunogenicity and safety of intradermal influenza vaccine in immunocompromized patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Pooled it
- Fractional dose of intradermal compared to intramuscular and subcutaneous vaccination - A systematic review and meta-analysis.Travel medicine and infectious diseasePooled it
- Standard-Dose Intradermal Influenza Vaccine Elicits Cellular Immune Responses Similar to Those of Intramuscular Vaccine in Men With and Those Without HIV Infection.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2019Trial
- Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Immunogenicity of Standard-Dose Intramuscular Versus Intradermal Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in HIV-Infected Men Who Have Sex With Men in Bangkok, Thailand.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016Trial
- Safety and immunogenicity of influenza vaccine among HIV-infected adults: Conventional vaccine vs. intradermal vaccine.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Trial
- Vaccinations for the HIV-Infected Adult: A Review of the Current Recommendations, Part I.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2017Review
- Fluzone® intra-dermal (Intanza®/Istivac® Intra-dermal): An updated overview.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Review
- Effect of vaccine administration modality on immunogenicity and efficacy.Expert review of vaccines · 2015Review
- Skin immunization with influenza vaccines.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2015Review
- Influenza vaccination in HIV-positive subjects: latest evidence and future perspective.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of intradermal (ID) trivalent inactivated split influenza vaccine, with a lower antigen content (9 mcg HA per strain) than the conventional intramuscular one (15 mcg), in HIV-1-infected adults younger than 60 years. A total of 54 HIV-1-positive participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive a single dose of either ID-administered low-antigen-content split inactivated vaccine or intramuscularly-administered (IM) standard-dose inactivated split vaccine. Subjects were provided with a diary to monitor any local and/or systemic reactions to the vaccine for 7 days following vaccination. Serum samples were collected before, 28 days and 90 days after immunization. The plasma HIV-RNA and CD4+ T-lymphocyte count were checked at day 0 and day 90. Serum hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) activity for the three influenza strains included in the vaccine composition was measured to assess the antibody response at one month and 3 months after vaccination. Both vaccines showed optimal safety and tolerability profiles. All the three Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use immunogenicity criteria for vaccine approval in adults younger than 60 were met by both vaccines against A(H1N1) and A(H3N2) viruses. Both vaccines met mean-fold-increase and seroprotection criteria but failed seroconversion criteria against B virus. No difference in terms of post-vaccination geometric mean titers, mean fold increase, seroprotection and seroconversion rates were found comparing ID and IM vaccines. In conclusion, the recently available low-antigen-content ID vaccine is safe, well-tolerated and as immunogenic as IM standard-dose influenza vaccine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.