Literature DB >> 26117150

Self-administration of intranasal influenza vaccine: Immunogenicity and volunteer acceptance.

Timothy H Burgess1, Clinton K Murray2, Mary F Bavaro3, Michael L Landrum4, Thomas A O'Bryan5, Jessica G Rosas6, Stephanie M Cammarata7, Nicholas J Martin8, Daniel Ewing9, Kanakatte Raviprakash10, Deepika Mor11, Elizabeth R Zell12, Kenneth J Wilkins13, Eugene V Millar14.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In outbreak settings, mass vaccination strategies could maximize health protection of military personnel. Self-administration of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) may be a means to vaccinate large numbers of people and achieve deployment readiness while sparing the use of human resources.
METHODS: A phase IV, open-label, randomized controlled trial evaluating the immunogenicity and acceptance of self-administered (SA) LAIV was conducted from 2012 to 2014. SA subjects were randomized to either individual self-administration or self-administration in a group setting. Control randomized subjects received healthcare worker-administered (HCWA) LAIV. Anti-hemagglutinin (HAI) antibody concentrations were measured pre- and post-vaccination. The primary endpoint was immunogenicity non-inferiority between SA and HCWA groups. Subjects were surveyed on preferred administration method.
RESULTS: A total of 1077 subjects consented and were randomized (529 SA, 548 HCWA). Subject characteristics were very similar between groups, though SA subjects were younger, more likely to be white and on active duty. The per-protocol analysis included 1024 subjects (501 SA, 523 HCWA). Post-vaccination geometric mean titers by vaccine strain and by study group (HCWA vs. SA) were: A/H1N1 (45.8 vs. 48.7, respectively; p=0.43), A/H3N2 (45.5 vs. 46.4; p=0.80), B/Yamagata (17.2 vs. 17.8; p=0.55). Seroresponses to A components were high (∼67%), while seroresponses to B components were lower (∼25%). Seroresponse did not differ by administration method. Baseline preference for administration method was similar between groups, with the majority in each group expressing no preference. At follow-up, the majority (64%) of SA subjects preferred SA vaccine.
CONCLUSIONS: LAIV immunogenicity was similar for HCWA and SA vaccines. SA was well-tolerated and preferred to HCWA among those who performed SA.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Influenza; Military; Self-administration; Vaccine

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26117150      PMCID: PMC5828152          DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.06.061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vaccine        ISSN: 0264-410X            Impact factor:   3.641


  10 in total

Review 1.  Mass immunization programs: principles and standards.

Authors:  J D Grabenstein; R L Nevin
Journal:  Curr Top Microbiol Immunol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.291

2.  Comparison of the trivalent live attenuated vs. inactivated influenza vaccines among U.S. military service members.

Authors:  Angelia A Eick; Zhong Wang; Hayley Hughes; Stephen M Ford; Steven K Tobler
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 3.641

3.  Comparison of the effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine and live, attenuated influenza vaccine in preventing influenza-like illness among US military service members, 2006-2009.

Authors:  Christopher J Phillips; Tabitha Woolpert; Carter Sevick; Dennis Faix; Patrick J Blair; Nancy F Crum-Cianflone
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 9.079

4.  Self-immunization with live attenuated influenza vaccine in a mass vaccination clinic.

Authors:  Matt Zahn; Priscilla Pursiful; Ruth Carrico; Charles Woods; Adewale Troutman
Journal:  Disaster Med Public Health Prep       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.385

5.  Detection of antibody to avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in human serum by using a combination of serologic assays.

Authors:  T Rowe; R A Abernathy; J Hu-Primmer; W W Thompson; X Lu; W Lim; K Fukuda; N J Cox; J M Katz
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  A randomized control trial comparing immunogenicity, safety, and preference for self- versus nurse-administered intradermal influenza vaccine.

Authors:  Brenda L Coleman; Allison J McGeer; Scott A Halperin; Joanne M Langley; Yassein Shamout; Anna Taddio; Vibhuti Shah; Shelly A McNeil
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 3.641

7.  Past trends and current status of self-reported incidence and impact of disease and nonbattle injury in military operations in Southwest Asia and the Middle East.

Authors:  Mark S Riddle; David R Tribble; Shannon D Putnam; Manal Mostafa; Theodore R Brown; Andrew Letizia; Adam W Armstrong; John W Sanders
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  The safety and effectiveness of self-administration of intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine in adults.

Authors:  Christopher S Ambrose; Xionghua Wu
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 3.641

9.  Live attenuated or inactivated influenza vaccines and medical encounters for respiratory illnesses among US military personnel.

Authors:  Zhong Wang; Steven Tobler; Jean Roayaei; Angelia Eick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Self reported incidence and morbidity of acute respiratory illness among deployed U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Authors:  Bryony W Soltis; John W Sanders; Shannon D Putnam; David R Tribble; Mark S Riddle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total
  7 in total

1.  The safety, immunogenicity, and acceptability of inactivated influenza vaccine delivered by microneedle patch (TIV-MNP 2015): a randomised, partly blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial.

Authors:  Nadine G Rouphael; Michele Paine; Regina Mosley; Sebastien Henry; Devin V McAllister; Haripriya Kalluri; Winston Pewin; Paula M Frew; Tianwei Yu; Natalie J Thornburg; Sarah Kabbani; Lilin Lai; Elena V Vassilieva; Ioanna Skountzou; Richard W Compans; Mark J Mulligan; Mark R Prausnitz
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Intranasal Vaccination Strategy to Control the COVID-19 Pandemic from a Veterinary Medicine Perspective.

Authors:  Salleh Annas; Mohd Zamri-Saad
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 3.  Novel Approaches for The Development of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines.

Authors:  Pilar Blanco-Lobo; Aitor Nogales; Laura Rodríguez; Luis Martínez-Sobrido
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 5.048

4.  The Acute Respiratory Infection Consortium: A Multi-Site, Multi-Disciplinary Clinical Research Network in the Department of Defense.

Authors:  Christian Coles; Eugene V Millar; Timothy Burgess; Martin G Ottolini
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 1.437

Review 5.  Factors Limiting the Translatability of Rodent Model-Based Intranasal Vaccine Research to Humans.

Authors:  Lucy Cai; Haiyue Xu; Zhengrong Cui
Journal:  AAPS PharmSciTech       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 4.026

6.  Moving the Needle: A 50-State and District of Columbia Landscape Review of Laws Regarding Pharmacy Technician Vaccine Administration.

Authors:  Deeb Eid; Joseph Osborne; Brian Borowicz
Journal:  Pharmacy (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-10

7.  Nasal Immunization With Small Molecule Mast Cell Activators Enhance Immunity to Co-Administered Subunit Immunogens.

Authors:  Brandi T Johnson-Weaver; Hae Woong Choi; Hang Yang; Josh A Granek; Cliburn Chan; Soman N Abraham; Herman F Staats
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 7.561

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.