Immunogenicity of a monovalent 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in infants: Randomized, observer-masked, single-center clinical study

0Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to further investigate the immune response of the inactivated split-virion vaccine for infants. We tested the immunogenicity and safety of the inactivated split-virion vaccine in infants, aged 6-35 months, for a randomized, observer-masked, age-stratified clinical study. We randomly divided subjects into three groups: 7.5 μg, 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen dosage groups and seasonal influenza vaccine for children dosage group in a 2 dose regimen. A serologic analysis was performed at baseline and on day 21 and 42. 312 infants received a single dose injection of vaccine and 265 (84.94%) infants received two doses injection of vaccine. Adverse reactions were mostly mild or moderate. Among the subjects who received 7.5 μg and 15 μg of vaccine for a single dose injection, the rate of hemagglutinin inhibition titer of 1:40 or greater were 52.48% (95% confidence interval (CI) 42.83 ~ 61.95) and 61.11% (95% CI 50.78 ~ 70.53), respectively. Among the subjects receiving 7.5 μg and 15 μg of vaccine for two doses injection, the rate of hemagglutinin inhibition (HI) titer of 1:40 or greater were 90.10% (95% CI 82.73 ~ 94.53) and 94.44% (95% CI 87.64 ~ 97.60), respectively. These data suggests that 15 μg or 7.5 μg dose of hemagglutinin antigen of the inactivated split-virion vaccine was safe and two doses of injection could induce a sufficient protective immune response in infants. Trial registration: Clinical trials registration: NCT01494740. © 2014 Wang et al.; licensee Springer.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wang, S., Dong, J., Chai, W., Li, F., Wang, S., Sun, B., & Chen, Z. (2014). Immunogenicity of a monovalent 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in infants: Randomized, observer-masked, single-center clinical study. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-397

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free