tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine. 2012 Dec 19. pii: S0264-410X(12)01798-7. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.12.028. [Epub ahead of print]
The safety and effectiveness of self-administration of intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine in adults.
Ambrose CS, Wu X.
Source
MedImmune, LLC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Electronic address: ambrosec@medimmune.com.
Abstract
Intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has potential for self-administration (SA) by adults and adolescents, which could save time and cost in mass vaccination settings. Participants in a study of LAIV in adults (n=4561) selected either SA or health care provider (HCP) administration and were followed for febrile illness during the influenza season. More LAIV recipients chose SA-LAIV (72%) than HCP-LAIV (28%). Overall, 97% of SA-LAIV and 98% of HCP-LAIV recipients had no problems with vaccine administration. Four of 13 study sites enrolled more than 50 subjects in both cohorts. Overall and for these 4 sites, illness incidence was similar with SA-LAIV and HCP-LAIV. Solicited reactogenicity events and adverse events through 7 days post vaccination were comparable for SA-LAIV and HCP-LAIV recipients; both groups exhibited increased runny nose, sore throat, and cough relative to placebo recipients. SA-LAIV and HCP-LAIV appeared similarly effective against influenza-like illness and had comparable safety profiles.
Copyright ? 2012. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
PMID:
23261050
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23261050
The safety and effectiveness of self-administration of intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine in adults.
Ambrose CS, Wu X.
Source
MedImmune, LLC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Electronic address: ambrosec@medimmune.com.
Abstract
Intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has potential for self-administration (SA) by adults and adolescents, which could save time and cost in mass vaccination settings. Participants in a study of LAIV in adults (n=4561) selected either SA or health care provider (HCP) administration and were followed for febrile illness during the influenza season. More LAIV recipients chose SA-LAIV (72%) than HCP-LAIV (28%). Overall, 97% of SA-LAIV and 98% of HCP-LAIV recipients had no problems with vaccine administration. Four of 13 study sites enrolled more than 50 subjects in both cohorts. Overall and for these 4 sites, illness incidence was similar with SA-LAIV and HCP-LAIV. Solicited reactogenicity events and adverse events through 7 days post vaccination were comparable for SA-LAIV and HCP-LAIV recipients; both groups exhibited increased runny nose, sore throat, and cough relative to placebo recipients. SA-LAIV and HCP-LAIV appeared similarly effective against influenza-like illness and had comparable safety profiles.
Copyright ? 2012. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
PMID:
23261050
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23261050