Literature DB >> 17301299

Live attenuated versus inactivated influenza vaccine in infants and young children.

Robert B Belshe1, Kathryn M Edwards, Timo Vesikari, Steven V Black, Robert E Walker, Micki Hultquist, George Kemble, Edward M Connor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Universal vaccination of children 6 to 59 months of age with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine has recently been recommended by U.S. advisory bodies. To evaluate alternative vaccine approaches, we compared the safety and efficacy of intranasally administered live attenuated influenza vaccine with those of inactivated vaccine in infants and young children.
METHODS: Children 6 to 59 months of age, without a recent episode of wheezing illness or severe asthma, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cold-adapted trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (a refrigeration-stable formulation of live attenuated intranasally administered influenza vaccine) or trivalent inactivated vaccine in a double-blind manner. Influenza-like illness was monitored with cultures throughout the 2004-2005 influenza season.
RESULTS: Safety data were available for 8352 children, and 7852 children completed the study according to the protocol. There were 54.9% fewer cases of cultured-confirmed influenza in the group that received live attenuated vaccine than in the group that received inactivated vaccine (153 vs. 338 cases, P<0.001). The superior efficacy of live attenuated vaccine, as compared with inactivated vaccine, was observed for both antigenically well-matched and drifted viruses. Among previously unvaccinated children, wheezing within 42 days after the administration of dose 1 was more common with live attenuated vaccine than with inactivated vaccine, primarily among children 6 to 11 months of age; in this age group, 12 more episodes of wheezing were noted within 42 days after receipt of dose 1 among recipients of live attenuated vaccine (3.8%) than among recipients of inactivated vaccine (2.1%, P=0.076). Rates of hospitalization for any cause during the 180 days after vaccination were higher among the recipients of live attenuated vaccine who were 6 to 11 months of age (6.1%) than among the recipients of inactivated vaccine in this age group (2.6%, P=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Among young children, live attenuated vaccine had significantly better efficacy than inactivated vaccine. An evaluation of the risks and benefits indicates that live attenuated vaccine should be a highly effective, safe vaccine for children 12 to 59 months of age who do not have a history of asthma or wheezing. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00128167 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17301299     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa065368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  280 in total

1.  Breastfeeding is associated with the production of type I interferon in infants infected with influenza virus.

Authors:  Guillermina A Melendi; Silvina Coviello; Niranjan Bhat; Johanna Zea-Hernandez; Fausto M Ferolla; Fernando P Polack
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.299

2.  A century of influenza prevention in St. Louis.

Authors:  Robert B Belshe
Journal:  Mo Med       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr

Review 3.  Economic evaluations of childhood influenza vaccination: a critical review.

Authors:  Anthony T Newall; Mark Jit; Philippe Beutels
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  In vitro analysis of virus particle subpopulations in candidate live-attenuated influenza vaccines distinguishes effective from ineffective vaccines.

Authors:  Philip I Marcus; John M Ngunjiri; Margaret J Sekellick; Leyi Wang; Chang-Won Lee
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 5.103

Review 5.  Avian influenza pandemic preparedness: developing prepandemic and pandemic vaccines against a moving target.

Authors:  Neetu Singh; Aseem Pandey; Suresh K Mittal
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Med       Date:  2010-04-29       Impact factor: 5.600

Review 6.  Influenza vaccines: from surveillance through production to protection.

Authors:  Pritish K Tosh; Robert M Jacobson; Gregory A Poland
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 7.  Update in asthma 2009.

Authors:  Wendy C Moore; Rodolfo M Pascual
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 21.405

8.  Establishing the baseline burden of influenza in preparation for the evaluation of a countywide school-based influenza vaccination campaign.

Authors:  Carlos G Grijalva; Yuwei Zhu; Lone Simonsen; Marie R Griffin
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 3.641

9.  Influenza vaccination for children with asthma.

Authors:  Bat-Chen Friedman; Ran D Goldman
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.275

10.  Letter in response to commentary by Small and Cronin.

Authors:  Lisa Grohskopf; Ivo Foppa; Brendan Flannery; Alicia Fry
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 3.641

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.