• 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.

Clinical Effectiveness of Split-Virion Versus Subunit Trivalent Influenza Vaccines in Older Adults

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Feb 18. pii: civ019. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Clinical Effectiveness of Split-Virion Versus Subunit Trivalent Influenza Vaccines in Older Adults.[/h] Talbot HK[SUP]1[/SUP], Nian H[SUP]1[/SUP], Zhu Y[SUP]1[/SUP], Chen Q[SUP]1[/SUP], Williams JV[SUP]1[/SUP], Griffin MR[SUP]1[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h]  Inactivated influenza vaccines are manufactured using either split-virion or subunit methods. These 2 methods produce similar hemagglutinin antibody responses, but different cellular immune responses.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h]  We compared the effectiveness of split-virion influenza vaccines to that of subunit influenza vaccines using prospectively collected data from adults aged ≥50 years who sought care for acute respiratory illness during 3 influenza seasons: 2008-2009, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 using a case-positive, control test-negative study design.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h]  Complete data were available for 539 participants, of whom 68 (12.6%) had influenza detected. Influenza-infected patients were younger (P < .001), were more likely to have received no vaccine or the subunit influenza vaccine than the split-virion vaccine (P < .001), and more likely to have sought care in either the emergency department or the acute care clinic than the hospital (P = .001). Split-virion vaccine effectiveness was 77.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58.5%-90.3%) compared with subunit vaccine effectiveness of 44.2% (95% CI, -11.8% to 70.9%), giving a difference in vaccine effectiveness of 33.5% (95% CI, 6.9%-86.7%).
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h]   Studies need to be done to further explore if there are differences in clinical effectiveness in older adults for the 2 vaccine manufacturing methods.
? The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] clinical effectiveness; influenza; older adults; split-virion vaccine; subunit vaccine

PMID: 25697739 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
 
Back
Top Bottom