Claudia Pileggi1, Valentina Mascaro2, Aida Bianco3, Carmelo G A Nobile4, Maria Pavia5. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Via Tommaso Campanella, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. claudiapileggi@unicz.it. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Via Tommaso Campanella, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. valentina.mascaro@yahoo.it. 3. Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Via Tommaso Campanella, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. a.bianco@unicz.it. 4. Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Via Tommaso Campanella, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. nobile@unicz.it. 5. Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Via Tommaso Campanella, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. pavia@unicz.it.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Immunosenescence makes the elderly more susceptible to influenza complications and less responsive to vaccination. An intradermal formulation (IDflu) is one of several strategies being investigated to increase the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines. OBJECTIVE: The overall goal of the study was to assess the safety and immunogenicity of IDflu compared with the intramuscular route (IMflu) in the elderly. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Included articles met the following criteria: RCTs; primary studies, not re-analyses or reviews; enrolment of elderly people; comparing the immunogenicity and/or safety of IDflu with IMflu; measuring seroprotection and/or seroconversion rate to assess immunogenicity; measuring local reactions and/or general symptoms and/or other mild local reactions that could affect acceptability of vaccine as safety indicators, according to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) criteria; published through January 2015. RESULTS: The results of our meta-analysis on seroprotection showed that IDflu is comparable to IMflu for each strain (A/H1N1: risk ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.07; A/H3N2: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.04; B 1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.08). The seroconversion rate achieved with IDflu was comparable to that of the control group (A/H1N1: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.97-1.2; A/H3N2: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96-1.21; B: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1-1.45). Systemic reactogenicity appeared similar in the two groups, while local reactions were significantly more frequent in the IDflu group. CONCLUSIONS: The novel IDflu appears to have the adequate balance between immunogenicity and safety in the elderly compared with IMflu, and its utilization may be considered among the possible strategies to enhance the control of seasonal influenza outbreaks according to the existing policy recommendations in the elderly.
INTRODUCTION: Immunosenescence makes the elderly more susceptible to influenza complications and less responsive to vaccination. An intradermal formulation (IDflu) is one of several strategies being investigated to increase the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines. OBJECTIVE: The overall goal of the study was to assess the safety and immunogenicity of IDflu compared with the intramuscular route (IMflu) in the elderly. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Included articles met the following criteria: RCTs; primary studies, not re-analyses or reviews; enrolment of elderly people; comparing the immunogenicity and/or safety of IDflu with IMflu; measuring seroprotection and/or seroconversion rate to assess immunogenicity; measuring local reactions and/or general symptoms and/or other mild local reactions that could affect acceptability of vaccine as safety indicators, according to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) criteria; published through January 2015. RESULTS: The results of our meta-analysis on seroprotection showed that IDflu is comparable to IMflu for each strain (A/H1N1: risk ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.07; A/H3N2: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.04; B 1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.08). The seroconversion rate achieved with IDflu was comparable to that of the control group (A/H1N1: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.97-1.2; A/H3N2: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96-1.21; B: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1-1.45). Systemic reactogenicity appeared similar in the two groups, while local reactions were significantly more frequent in the IDflu group. CONCLUSIONS: The novel IDflu appears to have the adequate balance between immunogenicity and safety in the elderly compared with IMflu, and its utilization may be considered among the possible strategies to enhance the control of seasonal influenza outbreaks according to the existing policy recommendations in the elderly.
Authors: Robert Arnou; Patrick Eavis; José-Ramon De Juanes Pardo; Arvydas Ambrozaitis; Marie-Pierre Kazek; Françoise Weber Journal: Hum Vaccin Date: 2010-04-15
Authors: David Holland; Robert Booy; Ferdinandus De Looze; Peter Eizenberg; James McDonald; Jeff Karrasch; Maureen McKeirnan; Hatem Salem; Graham Mills; Jim Reid; Françoise Weber; Melanie Saville Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Peter Tsang; Geoffrey J Gorse; Cynthia B Strout; Malcolm Sperling; David P Greenberg; Ayca Ozol-Godfrey; Carlos DiazGranados; Victoria Landolfi Journal: Vaccine Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Tuen-Ching Chan; Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung; Kwok-Hung Chan; Clara Pui-Yan Li; Patrick Tsz-Wai Li; James Ka-Hay Luk; Leung-Wing Chu; Felix Hon-Wai Chan Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: David W Scheifele; Shelly A McNeil; Brian J Ward; Marc Dionne; Curtis Cooper; Brenda Coleman; Mark Loeb; Ethan Rubinstein; Janet McElhaney; Todd Hatchette; Yan Li; Emanuele Montomoli; Amy Schneeberg; Julie A Bettinger; Scott A Halperin Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Oluwaseun Egunsola; Fiona Clement; John Taplin; Liza Mastikhina; Joyce W Li; Diane L Lorenzetti; Laura E Dowsett; Tom Noseworthy Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01
Authors: M Teresa Aguado; Jane Barratt; John R Beard; Bonnie B Blomberg; Wilbur H Chen; Julian Hickling; Terri B Hyde; Mark Jit; Rebecca Jones; Gregory A Poland; Martin Friede; Justin R Ortiz Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Jenny L Schnyder; Cornelis A De Pijper; Hannah M Garcia Garrido; Joost G Daams; Abraham Goorhuis; Cornelis Stijnis; Frieder Schaumburg; Martin P Grobusch Journal: Travel Med Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-06 Impact factor: 6.211