Trial reportHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2013
Head-to-head comparison of an intradermal and a virosome influenza vaccine in patients over the age of 60: evaluation of immunogenicity, cross-protection, safety and tolerability.
Trial report in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunogenicity and Safety of Reduced-Dose Intradermal vs Intramuscular Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative Immunogenicity of Enhanced Seasonal Influenza Vaccines in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2019Pooled it
- Immunogenicity and Safety of Intradermal Influenza Vaccine in the Elderly: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Drugs & aging · 2015Pooled it
- Immunogenicity of intramuscular MF59-adjuvanted and intradermal administered influenza enhanced vaccines in subjects aged over 60: A literature review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2015Pooled it
- Nine μg intradermal influenza vaccine and 15 μg intramuscular influenza vaccine induce similar cellular and humoral immune responses in adults.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014Trial
- Immunogenicity of Enhanced Influenza Vaccines Against Mismatched Influenza Strains in Older Adults: A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2024Review
- Establishment of isotype-switched, antigen-specific B cells in multiple mucosal tissues using non-mucosal immunization.NPJ vaccines · 2023Article
- Summary of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) Statement-Recommendations on Fractional Influenza Vaccine Dosing in the Event of a Shortage: Pandemic preparedness.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2023Article
- Enhancing Immunogenicity of Influenza Vaccine in the Elderly through Intradermal Vaccination: A Literature Analysis.Viruses · 2022Review
- Immunogenicity, safety and tolerability of intradermal influenza vaccines.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Review
- Influenza vaccination in the elderly.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Review
- Fluzone® intra-dermal (Intanza®/Istivac® Intra-dermal): An updated overview.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Review
- Particle-based platforms for malaria vaccines.Vaccine · 2015Review
- Fast vaccine design and development based on correlates of protection (COPs).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014Review
- Antibody responses to intradermal or intramuscular MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccines as evaluated in elderly institutionalized volunteers during a season of partial mismatching between vaccine and circulating A(H3N2) strains.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 2014Article
- Vaccine strategies to enhance immune responses in the aged.Current opinion in immunology · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present study we first compare immunogenicity against vaccine and heterologous circulating A(H1N1)pdm09 strains, tolerability and safety of intradermal Intanza 15 μg and of virosomal adjuvanted, intramuscularly delivered influenza vaccine, Inflexal V, in healthy elderly volunteers. Five-hundred participants were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to the two vaccine groups to receive either one dose of Intanza 15 μg or Inflexal V vaccine. All subjects reported solicited local and systemic reactions occurred within 7 d after vaccination and unsolicited adverse events up to 21 d post-immunization and any serious adverse event appeared during the study. A subset of 55 participants was randomly selected for immunogenicity and cross-protection evaluations. Serum samples were collected before and 1 and 3 mo after immunization. Antibody responses were measured using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) against all viruses used in the study and neutralization (NT) assays against A(H1N1)pdm09 strains. At least one of the CHMP criteria for influenza vaccine approval in the elderly was met by virosomal vaccine against all the tested viruses; intradermal vaccine met all criteria against all strains. Several parameters of immune response against strains with a different antigenic pattern from that of vaccine A/California/04/09(H1N1)pdm09 were significantly higher in the intradermal vaccine group compared with the virosomal group. Safety and systemic tolerability of both vaccines were excellent, but injection site reactions occurred significantly more frequently in the intradermal vaccination group. Immunogenicity of Intanza 15 μg intradermal vaccine tended to be higher than that of Inflexal V against heterologous strains in healthy elderly.
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.