Literature DB >> 15071282

Comparison of immunogenicity and tolerability of a virosome-adjuvanted and a split influenza vaccine in children.

Güler Kanra1, Paola Marchisio, Cornelia Feiterna-Sperling, Gerhard Gaedicke, Hedvika Lazar, Peter Durrer, Oliver Kürsteiner, Christian Herzog, Ates Kara, Nicola Principi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the immunogenicity and safety of a virosome-adjuvanted influenza vaccine (Inflexal V; Berna Biotech, Berne, Switzerland) and a split influenza vaccine (Fluarix; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium) in children. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The subjects, 453 children ages 6 to 71 months, were stratified into primed and unprimed and age groups (6 to 35 and 36 to 71 months) and then randomized 1:1 to receive virosome-adjuvanted (n = 224) or split influenza vaccine (n = 229), a half or full dose was given intramuscularly according to age. Unprimed children received a second dose after 4 weeks. Blood samples (n = 326) collected pre-and 28 days postvaccination were analyzed by hemagglutination inhibition test. Safety assessments were made at baseline and follow-up visits by the investigators and by parents for the 4 days after vaccinations.
RESULTS: Both vaccines induced an effective immune response. Seroconversion rates (>4-fold titer rise) against the WHO recommended strains A/New Caledonia (H3N2), A/Moscow (H1N1) and B/Hongkong (B) were 80.1, 66.0 and 90.4% for the virosome-adjuvanted and 75.9, 62.9 and 89.4% for the split influenza vaccine, respectively. Unprimed children's seroconversion rates for H3N2 were significantly higher (P = 0.02) for the virosome-adjuvanted (88.8%) than for split influenza vaccine (77.5%). Seroprotection rates (titer of > 40) for H3N2, H1N1 and B, respectively, were 87.8, 80.1 and 90.4% after vaccination with the virosome-adjuvanted vaccine and 82.9, 78.2 and 89.4% after the split influenza vaccine. Unprimed children's seroprotection rate was significantly higher (P = 0.03) for H3N2 after the virosome-adjuvanted (88.8%) than those for the split influenza vaccine (78.3%). Equivalent geometric mean titer fold increases were evident for both vaccines. No serious adverse events were seen. Pain/ tenderness, redness and swelling/induration was found in 25.4, 11.2 and 8.9% for the virosome-adjuvanted vaccine and in 24.0, 9.2 and 6.1% for the split influenza vaccine, respectively. The rates of fever, malaise/irritability and shivering was 6.3, 11.6 and 2.7% for the virosome-adjuvanted vaccine and 8.3, 11.8 and 2.6% for the split influenza vaccine, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The virosome-adjuvanted influenza vaccine showed greater immunogenicity over the split influenza vaccine in unprimed children and showed a trend toward better immunogenicity in the rest of the study population. Both vaccines were well-tolerated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15071282     DOI: 10.1097/00006454-200404000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Infect Dis J        ISSN: 0891-3668            Impact factor:   2.129


  14 in total

Review 1.  Inactivated influenza vaccines: recent progress and implications for the elderly.

Authors:  Valentina Parodi; Daniela de Florentiis; Mariano Martini; Filippo Ansaldi
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 3.923

2.  Influenza virosomes supplemented with GPI-0100 adjuvant: a potent vaccine formulation for antigen dose sparing.

Authors:  Heng Liu; Jacqueline de Vries-Idema; Wouter Ter Veer; Jan Wilschut; Anke Huckriede
Journal:  Med Microbiol Immunol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 3.  Clinical Translation of Nanomedicine.

Authors:  Yuanzeng Min; Joseph M Caster; Michael J Eblan; Andrew Z Wang
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 60.622

Review 4.  Adjuvanted influenza vaccines.

Authors:  John S Tregoning; Ryan F Russell; Ekaterina Kinnear
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Progress in understanding and controlling respiratory syncytial virus: still crazy after all these years.

Authors:  Peter L Collins; José A Melero
Journal:  Virus Res       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 3.303

Review 6.  Protection of young children from influenza through universal vaccination.

Authors:  Nicola Principi; Laura Senatore; Susanna Esposito
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 7.  Influenza burden of illness, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention: what is the evidence in children and where are the gaps?

Authors:  S S S Teo; J S Nguyen-Van-Tam; R Booy
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.791

8.  Immunogenicity and safety of an inactivated trivalent split influenza virus vaccine in young children with recurrent wheezing.

Authors:  E Young Bae; Ui Yoon Choi; Hyo Jin Kwon; Dae Chul Jeong; Jung Woo Rhim; Sang Hyuk Ma; Kyung Il Lee; Jin Han Kang
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2013-03-27

Review 9.  Quantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines.

Authors:  Jessica C Seidman; Stephanie A Richard; Cécile Viboud; Mark A Miller
Journal:  Influenza Other Respir Viruses       Date:  2011-06-13       Impact factor: 4.380

10.  Safety and immunogenicity of a new trivalent inactivated split-virus influenza vaccine in healthy Korean children: a randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, phase III study.

Authors:  Jin-Han Kang; Chi-Eun Oh; Jina Lee; Soo-Young Lee; Sung-Ho Cha; Dong Soo Kim; Hyun-Hee Kim; Jung-Hyun Lee; Jin-Tack Kim; Sang-Hyuk Ma; Young-Jin Hong; Hee Jin Cheong; Hoan-Jong Lee
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.