• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

A phase 1, open-label, randomized study to compare the immunogenicity and safety of different administration routes and doses of virosomal influenza v

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine. 2016 Sep 22. pii: S0264-410X(16)30804-0. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.09.008. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]A phase 1, open-label, randomized study to compare the immunogenicity and safety of different administration routes and doses of virosomal influenza vaccine in elderly.[/h] Levin Y[SUP]1[/SUP], Kochba E[SUP]2[/SUP], Shukarev G[SUP]3[/SUP], Rusch S[SUP]4[/SUP], Herrera-Taracena G[SUP]5[/SUP], van Damme P[SUP]6[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Influenza remains a significant problem in elderly despite widespread vaccination coverage. This randomized, phase-I study in elderly compared different strategies of improving vaccine immunogenicity.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] A total of 370 healthy participants (⩾65years) were randomized equally 1:1:1:1:1:1 to six influenza vaccine treatments (approximately 60-63 participants per treatment arm) at day 1 that consisted of three investigational virosomal vaccine formulations at doses of 7.5, 15, and 45μg HA antigen/strain administered intradermally (ID) by MicronJet600? microneedle device (NanoPass Technologies) or intramuscularly (IM), and three comparator registered seasonal vaccines; Inflexal V? (Janssen) and MF59 adjuvanted Fluad? (Novartis) administered IM and Intanza? (Sanofi Pasteur) administered ID via Soluvia? prefilled microinjection system (BD). Serological evaluations were performed at days 22 and 90 and safety followed-up for 6months.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Intradermal delivery of virosomal vaccine using MicronJet600? resulted in significantly higher immunogenicity than the equivalent dose of virosomal Inflexal V? administered intramuscularly across most of the parameters and strains, as well as in some of the readouts and strains as compared with the 45μg dose of virosomal vaccine formulation. Of 370 participants, 300 (81.1%) reported ⩾1 adverse event (AE); more participants reported solicited local AEs (72.2%) than solicited systemic AEs (12.2%).
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] Intradermal delivery significantly improved influenza vaccine immunogenicity compared with intramuscular delivery. Triple dose (45μg) virosomal vaccine did not demonstrate any benefit on vaccine's immunogenicity over 15μg commercial presentation. All treatments were generally safe and well-tolerated.
Copyright ? 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Adjuvant; High-dose; Immunogenicity; Influenza vaccine; Intradermal; Microneedle

PMID: 27667332 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.09.008
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher] Free full text
 
Back
Top Bottom