ArticleClinical and experimental vaccine research2013
Long-term immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine at reduced intradermal and full intramuscular doses among healthy young adults.
Article in Clinical and experimental vaccine research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Immunogenicity and Safety of Reduced-Dose Intradermal vs Intramuscular Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Fractional dose of intradermal compared to intramuscular and subcutaneous vaccination - A systematic review and meta-analysis.Travel medicine and infectious diseasePooled it
- Antibody Persistence in Adults Two Years after Vaccination with an H1N1 2009 Pandemic Influenza Virus-Like Particle Vaccine.PloS one · 2016Trial
- Intradermal Vaccination: A Potential Tool in the Battle Against the COVID-19 Pandemic?Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Review
- Article
- Effect of vaccine administration modality on immunogenicity and efficacy.Expert review of vaccines · 2015Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo prepare for vaccine shortages under an influenza pandemic, several antigen-sparing strategies have been investigated. This study was aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity of influenza vaccine at reduced intradermal and full intramuscular dose. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe compared the effect of one-fifth and one-half intradermal doses to the full intramuscular dose on immunogenicity in healthy young adults, using a commercial influenza vaccine. A hemagglutination inhibition assay was used to compare the immunogenicity of the vaccination methods.
resultsThe one-fifth intradermal dose (3 µg hemagglutinin antigen, HA) was given to 30 participants, the one-half intradermal dose (7.5 µg HA) was given to 30, and the full intramuscular dose (15 µg HA) was given to 32. No significant differences among injection routes and dosages were seen for seroprotection rate, seroconversion rate, or geometric mean titer (GMT) fold-increase for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B at around 4 weeks from vaccination. Although GMT for influenza B was significantly lower at six months for the one-fifth intradermal vaccination compared to the full-dose intramuscular vaccination (32.8 vs. 63.2, p=0.048), all three groups met the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMA) immunogenicity criteria through 1 to 6 months.
conclusionIntradermal administration of a one-fifth dose of influenza vaccine elicited antibody responses comparable to the intradermal one-half dose and a conventional intramuscular vaccination at 1 month post-vaccination. The immunogenicity of the one-fifth intradermal dose was sufficient to meet the requirement for the EMA criteria at six months after influenza vaccination.
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.