• 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.

N Engl J Med. Response to a Monovalent 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine

Giuseppe

Emeritus
Response to a Monovalent 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine (N Engl J Med., abstract, edited)

Response to a Monovalent 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine

Michael E. Greenberg, M.D., M.P.H., Michael H. Lai, B.Med.Sc., M.B., B.S., M.Med.Sc., Gunter F. Hartel, M.S., Ph.D., Christine H. Wichems, Ph.D., Charmaine Gittleson, B.Sc., M.B., B.Ch., Jillian Bennet, M.Sc., M.P.H., Gail Dawson, B.Pharm., Wilson Hu, M.D., M.B.A., Connie Leggio, B.Sc., Diane Washington, M.D., and Russell L. Basser, M.B., B.S., M.D., F.R.A.C.P.


ABSTRACT

Background
A novel 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus is responsible for the first influenza pandemic in 41 years. A safe and effective vaccine is needed. A randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group trial evaluating two doses of an inactivated, split-virus 2009 H1N1 vaccine in healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years is ongoing at a single site in Australia.

Methods
We evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of the vaccine after each of two scheduled doses, administered 21 days apart. A total of 240 subjects, equally divided into two age groups (<50 years and ≥50 years), were enrolled and underwent randomization to receive either 15 ?g or 30 ?g of hemagglutinin antigen by intramuscular injection. We measured antibody titers using hemagglutination-inhibition and microneutralization assays at baseline and 21 days after vaccination. The coprimary immunogenicity end points were the proportion of subjects with antibody titers of 1:40 or more on hemagglutination-inhibition assay, the proportion of subjects with either seroconversion or a significant increase in antibody titer, and the factor increase in the geometric mean titer.

Results
By day 21 after the first dose, antibody titers of 1:40 or more were observed in 114 of 120 subjects (95.0%) who received the 15-?g dose and in 106 of 119 subjects (89.1%) who received the 30-?g dose. A similar result was observed after the second dose of vaccine. No deaths, serious adverse events, or adverse events of special interest were reported. Local discomfort (e.g., injection-site tenderness or pain) was reported by 56.3% of subjects, and systemic symptoms (e.g., headache) by 53.8% of subjects after each dose. Nearly all events were mild to moderate in intensity.

Conclusions
A single 15-?g dose of 2009 H1N1 vaccine was immunogenic in adults, with mild-to-moderate vaccine-associated reactions. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00938639 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .)
-
<cite cite="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/25/2405?query=TOC">NEJM -- Response to a Monovalent 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine</cite>
 

Attachments

Re: N Engl J Med. Response to a Monovalent 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine

.....antibody titers of 1:40 or more were observed in 114 of 120 subjects (95.0%) who received the 15-?g dose and in 106 of 119 subjects (89.1%) who received the 30-?g dose.

Why would a larger dose produce lower antibody titers?

is this a normal variation in such a small sampling of patients?

.
 
Back
Top Bottom