• 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.

Contribution of serology assays in the evaluation of influenza virus infection rates and vaccine efficacy in pregnant women: Report from randomized co

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix241. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Contribution of serology assays in the evaluation of influenza virus infection rates and vaccine efficacy in pregnant women: Report from randomized controlled trials.[/h] Madhi SA[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2,[/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP], Nunes M[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Weinberg A[SUP]4[/SUP], Kuwanda L[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Hugo A[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Jones S[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], van Niekerk N[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Ortiz JR[SUP]5[/SUP], Neuzil KM[SUP]6[/SUP], Klugman KP[SUP]7[/SUP], Simoes EA[SUP]8[/SUP], Cutland CL[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP]; Matflu team.
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]Background:[/h] The utility of serological testing to evaluate vaccine efficacy of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IIV against serologically-diagnosed influenza infection (SDI), and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed influenza illness (PCR-CI) in women vaccinated during pregnancy.
[h=4]Methods:[/h] We undertook a post-hoc analysis of two randomized clinical trials evaluating IIV efficacy among HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected pregnant women. SDI was defined as ≥4-fold increase in paired hemagglutinin antibody inhibition (HAI) titres from one month post-vaccination until end-of-study participation. PCR-CI was defined as molecular diagnostic evidence of influenza virus in pharyngeal specimens collected during clinical illness.
[h=4]Results:[/h] Among placebo-recipients, the respective incidence of PCR-CI and SDI were 5.6% and 35.0% in HIV-uninfected women; and 20.5% and 43.6% among HIV-infected women. Vaccine efficacy in HIV-uninfected women was similar for PCR-CI (66.9%; 95%CI: -20.1 to 90.9) and SDI (59.2%; 95%CI: 37.0 to 73.5), however, fewer women required vaccination to prevent one episode of SDI (5; 95%CI: 3 to 9) than PCR-CI (27; 95%CI: 12 to ∞). Also, vaccine efficacy was similar for PCR-CI (61.2%; 95%CI: 10.7 to 83.2) and SDI (60.9%; 95%CI: 3.9 to 76.9) in HIV-infected women, with 2-fold fewer women needing to be vaccinated to prevent SDI (4; 95%CI: 3 to 8) than PCR-CI (8; 95%CI: 4 to 52).
[h=4]Conclusion:[/h] Although vaccine efficacy was similar when measured for PCR-CI or SDI, IIV vaccination prevented a greater number of SDI than PCR-CI, the clinical relevance of the former warrants interrogation.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] efficacy; hemagglutination inhibition assay; immunogenicity; influenza vaccine; phase III trial

PMID: 28369198 DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix241
 
Back
Top Bottom