• 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.

J Infect Dis. Subunit Influenza Vaccines Produced from Cell Culture or in Embryonated Chicken Eggs: Comparison of Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunoge

Giuseppe

Emeritus
J Infect Dis. 2009 Aug 12. [Epub ahead of print]

Subunit Influenza Vaccines Produced from Cell Culture or in Embryonated Chicken Eggs: Comparison of Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity.

Reisinger KS, Block SL, Izu A, Groth N, Holmes SJ. - Primary Physician's Research, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 2Kentucky Pediatric/Adult Research, Bardstown, Kentucky; 3Global Clinical Research and Development, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 4Global Clinical Research and Development, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Siena, Italy.

Background.
This study assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of an injectable cell culture-derived influenza vaccine (CCIV), compared with those of an injectable egg-based trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV).

Methods.
Adult subjects ([Formula: see text]; 18 to <50 years of age) were randomized (1:1) to receive either CCIV or TIV. The safety and reactogenicity of the 2 vaccines were assessed on the basis of solicited indicators and other adverse events (AEs) within 7 days of vaccination. All serious AEs and those AEs resulting in withdrawal were recorded throughout the study. Antibody titers were determined by the hemagglutination inhibition assay, using egg- and cell-derived antigens. Immunogenicity was assessed on the basis of the ratio of postvaccination (day 22) geometric mean titers (GMTs) between the 2 vaccines, seroprotection rates, and seroconversion rates.

Results.
There was no clinically relevant difference between the safety and reactogenicity profiles of the 2 vaccines. The immunogenicity of CCIV was demonstrated to be noninferior to that of TIV on the basis of the ratio of postvaccination GMTs between the 2 vaccines. GMTs, seroprotection rates, and seroconversion rates were comparable between the 2 vaccines.

Conclusions.
The safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of the CCIV and the egg-based TIV are comparable.

PMID: 19673652 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
-
------
 
Back
Top Bottom