• 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.

Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Safety of Conventional Subunit, MF59-Adjuvanted, and Intradermal Influenza Vaccine in the Elderly

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2014 May 14. pii: CVI.00615-13. [Epub ahead of print]
Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Safety of Conventional Subunit, MF59-Adjuvanted, and Intradermal Influenza Vaccine in the Elderly.
Seo YB1, Choi WS1, Lee J2, Song JY1, Cheong HJ3, Kim WJ4.
Author information
Abstract

The influenza vaccination is known as the most effective method for preventing influenza and its complications in the elderly. Conventional subunit (Agrippal S1, Novartis), MF59-adjuvanted (Fluad, Novartis), and intradermal influenza vaccine (IDflu15, Sanofi Pasteur) are widely used throughout Korea. However, few comparative studies evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines are available. Prior to the beginning of the 2011-2012 influenza season, 335 elderly healthy volunteers randomly received one of the three seasonal trivalent influenza vaccines: Conventional subunit, MF59-adjuvanted and intradermal influenza vaccine. Serum hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies were measured at the time of vaccination and 1 month and 6 months after vaccination. Adverse events were recorded prospectively. A total of 113 conventional subunit, 111 MF59-adjuvanted, and 111 intradermal influenza vaccine volunteers were followed up during a 6-month post-vaccination period. One month after vaccination, all three vaccines satisfied CHMP criteria for A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 strains, but not the B strain. Compared with the subunit vaccine, the intradermal vaccine exhibited non-inferiority, while the MF59-adjuvanted vaccine exhibited superiority. Furthermore, the MF59-adjuvanted vaccine was more immunogenic towards the A/H3N2 strain than the subunit vaccine up to six months post-vaccination. The most common local and systemic reactions were local pain at the injection site and generalized myalgia. (7.1% vs. 10.8% vs. 6.3%; 0.9% vs. 8.1% vs. 5.4%, respectively) Local and systemic reactions were similar among the three vaccine groups. MF59-adjuvanted vaccine exhibited superior immunogenicity compared with a conventional subunit vaccine and had a comparable safety profile. For older adults, MF59-adjuvatned vaccine is preferable for providing superior immunogenicity.

Copyright ? 2014, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

PMID:
24828092
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Free full text

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24828092
 
Back
Top Bottom