Trial reportHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2014
Phase IV: randomized controlled trial to evaluate lot consistency of trivalent split influenza vaccines in healthy adults.
Trial report in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized, double-blind, multi-center, phase III clinical trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of MG1109 (egg-based pre-pandemic influenza A/H5N1 vaccine) in healthy adults.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2017Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Influenza vaccines are the primary method for preventing influenza and its complications. Considering the increasing demand for influenza vaccines, vaccine manufacturers are required to establish large-scale production systems. This phase IV randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the lot consistency of trivalent split influenza vaccines regarding immunogenicity and safety. A total of 1,023 healthy adults aged 18-64 y were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive the GC FLU® Prefilled Syringe or the GC FLU® Injection, and they were further randomized to one of 3 lots of each vaccine in a 1:1:1 ratio. In both GC FLU® Injection and GC FLU® Prefilled Syringe groups, immune responses were equivalent between lots for each of the 3 vaccine strains on day 21. The 2-sided 95% CI of GMT ratios between pairs of lots were between 0.67 and 1.5, meeting the equivalence criteria. After vaccination, all 3 criteria of the European Medicines Agency were met in both GC FLU® Injection and GC FLU® Prefilled Syringe groups. The vaccines showed tolerable safety profiles without serious adverse events. The demonstration of lot consistency, robust immunogenic responses and favorable safety profiles support the reliability of mass-manufacturing systems for the GC FLU® Injection and GC FLU® Prefilled Syringe.
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.