Comparison of US Inactivated Split-Virus and Russian Live Attenuated, Cold-Adapted Trivalent Influenza Vaccines in Russian Schoolchildren

Khan, Ali S.; Polezhaev, F I; Vasiljeva, R.; Drinevsky, V.; Buffington, Joanna; Gary, Howard E.; Соминина, А. А.; Keitel, Wendy A.; Regnery, Helen L.; Lonskaya, N. L.; Doroshenko, Elena; Gavrilov, Andrei; Ivakhov, I.; Arden, Nancy H.; Schonberger, L. B.; Couch, Robert B.; Kendal, Alan P.; Cox, Nancy J.

doi:10.1093/infdis/173.2.453

Cited by 75 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We identified 60 eligible articles published between 1987 and 2006 describing inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine immunogenicity studies conducted in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, and Russia 10 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 . We included 129 independent study arms of which 119 reported data on response to A/H1N1, 109 on influenza B, and 108 on A/H3N2 vaccine strains (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines

Seidman

Richard

Viboud

et al. 2011

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this paper as: Seidman et al. (2012) Quantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(1), 52–62. Background Seasonal influenza epidemics are associated with significant morbidity and mortality each year, particularly amongst young children and the elderly. Seasonal influenza vaccines have been available for decades, yet influenza remains a major public health threat in the US, sparking interest in studies evaluating the effectiveness of vaccination. Objectives We sought to identify determinants of serological responses to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines including number of doses, adjuvant, and subject characteristics. Methods We reviewed 60 articles published between 1987 and 2006. We used weighted multiple logistic regression and random‐effects models to evaluate how seroconversion and seroprotection rates varied with host and vaccine factors. Results Both children and seniors tended to have poorer immune responses compared to adults whereas use of adjuvant and a second vaccine dose tended to improve immune response. Pre‐vaccination serological status had a large impact on the immune response to vaccination. We found substantial heterogeneity among studies, even with similar population settings and vaccination regimen. Conclusions Future studies should stratify their results by pre‐vaccination serological status in an effort to produce more precise summary estimates of vaccine response.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines

Seidman

Richard

Viboud

et al. 2011

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With EPI-Info, version 6 (CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA) we estimated that a minimal cohort size of 330 children would give us an 80 % chance of detecting a reduction of at least 50 % [15,27,28] in outcome events among recipients of the vaccine. We assumed for this calculation an immunization rate of 45 %, an event rate of 25 % in unvaccinated persons and a twosided alfa level of 5 %.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The size of the cohort was large enough to demonstrate an expected 50 % reduction of outcomes resulting from the vaccine based on earlier observations. Sugaya et al [15], for example, recorded a 49 % reduction in febrile episodes in vaccinated asthmatic children aged 2-14 years, Khan et al [28] demonstrated a vaccine efficacy for preventing school absenteeism due to respiratory illness of 56 % in healthy children and Gross et al [27] recorded a 50 % reduction in influenza-related illness among the elderly in a large meta-analysis. In the 1996-7 season we were therefore able to demonstrate a statistically significant vaccine protectiveness of 56 % overall and of 77 % in the youngest asthmatics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effectiveness of conventional influenza vaccination in asthmatic children

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYInfluenza immunization rates among young asthmatics remain unsatisfactory due to persistent concern about the impact of influenza and the benefits of the vaccine. We assessed the effectiveness of the conventional inactivated trivalent sub-unit influenza vaccine in reducing acute respiratory disease in asthmatic children. We conducted a two-season retrospective cohort study covering the 1995-6 and 1996-7 influenza outbreaks in 22 computerized primary care practices in the Netherlands. In total, 349 patients aged between 0 and 12 years meeting clinical asthma-criteria were included ; 14 children were lost to follow-up in the second season. The occurrence of physician-diagnosed acute respiratory disease episodes including influenzalike illness, pneumonia, bronchitis, bronchiolitis, asthma exacerbation and acute otitis media in vaccinated and unvaccinated children were compared after adjustments for age, prior health care and medication use. The occurrence of acute respiratory disease in unvaccinated children was 28 % and 24 % in the 1995-6 and 1996-7 season, respectively, and was highest in children under 6 years of age (43 %). The overall pooled clinical vaccine effectiveness was 27 % (95 % confidence interval k7 to 51%, P l 0n11) after adjustments. A statistically higher vaccine protectiveness of 55 % (95 % CI 20-75 %, P l 0n01) was observed among asthmatics under 6 years of age compared with k5 % in older children (95 % CI k81 to 39 %).

show abstract

“…9,44,45 Infection rates in young children are comparable to or higher than in adults, 46 -48 and lost productivity as a result of influenza at all ages results in substantial costs to society. 14 Preschools are now an integral part of American life and (as with schools) increase the risk of infection for participating children and for secondary transmission to family members.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Intranasal Influenza Vaccine for the Prevention of Influenza in Healthy Children

Luce¹,

Zangwill

Palmer³

et al. 2001

Pediatrics

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Objective. Intranasal influenza vaccine has proven clinical efficacy and may be better tolerated by young children and their families than an injectable vaccine. This study determined the potential cost-effectiveness (CE) of an intranasal influenza vaccine among healthy children.Methods. We conducted a CE analysis of data collected between 1996 and 1998 during a prospective 2-year efficacy trial of intranasal influenza vaccine, supplemented with data from the literature. The CE analysis included both direct and indirect costs. We enrolled 1602 healthy children aged 15 to 71 months in year 1, 1358 of whom were enrolled in year 2. One or 2 doses of intranasal influenza vaccine or placebo were administered to measure the cost per febrile influenza-like illness (ILI) day avoided.Results. During the 2-year study period, vaccinated children had an average of 1.2 fewer ILI fever days/child than unvaccinated children. In an individual-based vaccine delivery scenario with vaccine given twice in the first year and once each year thereafter at an assumed base case total cost of $20 for the vaccine and its administration (ie, per dose), CE was approximately $30/febrile ILI day avoided. CE ranged from $10 to $69/febrile ILI day avoided at $10 to $40/dose, respectively. In a groupbased delivery scenario, vaccination was cost saving compared with placebo and remained so if vaccine cost was <$28 (the break-even price per dose). In the individualbased scenario, vaccination was cost saving if vaccine cost was <$5. In this scenario, nearly half of lost productivity in the vaccine group was attributable to vaccine visits, which overshadowed the relatively modest savings in ILI-associated costs averted.Conclusions. Routine use of intranasal influenza vaccine among healthy children may be cost-effective and may be maximized by using group-based vaccination approaches. Pediatrics 2001;108(2). URL: http://www. pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/108/2/e24; cost-effectiveness, influenza, vaccine, children.

show abstract

Comparison of US Inactivated Split-Virus and Russian Live Attenuated, Cold-Adapted Trivalent Influenza Vaccines in Russian Schoolchildren

Cited by 75 publications

References 8 publications

Quantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines

Quantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines

Clinical effectiveness of conventional influenza vaccination in asthmatic children

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Intranasal Influenza Vaccine for the Prevention of Influenza in Healthy Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About