Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36366536›Full record

ReviewViruses2022

Enhancing Immunogenicity of Influenza Vaccine in the Elderly through Intradermal Vaccination: A Literature Analysis.

Huy Quang Quach, Richard B Kennedy

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Emerging adjuvants for intradermal vaccination.International journal of pharmaceutics · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Huy Quang QuachMayo Clinic Vaccine Research Group, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Richard B KennedyMayo Clinic Vaccine Research Group, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6164-4967
Mayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

COVID Supplement - COMPONENT A OF THE COLLABORATIVE INFLUENZA VACCINE INNOVATION CENTERS (CIVICS) PROGRAM TO DESIGN AND EVALUATE INNOVATIVE INFLUENZA VACCINE APPROACHES,75N93019C00052 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA · PI ROSS, TED · 2019 to 2025
$74.6M
Transcriptomic Signatures of Influenza Vaccine ResponsesR01AI132348 · NIAID · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KENNEDY, RICHARD B, POLAND, GREGORY A. · 2018 to 2022
$3.9M
CDC HHS 75D30119C06088NIAID NIH HHS 75N93019C00052NIH HHS R01AI132348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAging and immunosenescence lead to a gradual decline in immune responses in the elderly and the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in this age group is sub-optimal. Several approaches have been explored to enhance the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in the elderly, including incorporating vaccine adjuvant, increasing antigen dosage, and changing the route of vaccine administration.

methodWe systematically compared the immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccines administered by intradermal (ID) route and either intramuscular (IM) or subcutaneous (SC) routes in older adults aged ≥ 65.

resultsOf 17 studies included in this analysis, 3 studies compared the immunogenicity of ID vaccination to that of SC vaccination and 14 studies compared ID and IM vaccinations. ID vaccination was typically more immunogenic than both IM and SC routes at the same dosage. Importantly, a minimum of 3 µg of hemagglutinin antigen could be formulated in an ID influenza vaccine without a significant loss of immunogenicity. ID administration of standard-dose, unadjuvanted influenza vaccine was as immunogenic as IM injection of adjuvanted influenza vaccine. Waning of influenza-specific immunity was significant after 6 months, but there was no difference in waning immunity between vaccinations in ID, IM, or SC routes. While ID vaccination elicited local adverse reactions more frequently than other routes, these reactions were mild and lasted for no more than 3 days.

conclusionsWe conclude that ID vaccination is superior to IM or SC routes and may be a suitable approach to compensate for the reduced immunogenicity observed in elderly adults. We also conclude that the main benefit of ID influenza vaccine lies in its dose-sparing effect. Additional research is still needed to further develop a more immunogenic ID influenza vaccine.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesAgedAntibodies, ViralHumansInjections, IntradermalInjections, IntramuscularVaccinationAntibodies, ViralInfluenza Vaccinesadministration routeimmunogenicityinfluenza vaccineintradermal vaccineintramuscular vaccineolder adultssubcutaneous vaccine

Identifiers

PMID36366536
PMCPMC9698533
OpenAlexW4308302287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.