Effectiveness of inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine for primary vaccination / 中华预防医学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To study the immunological effectiveness of inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine (IPV) for children's primary vaccination in China and to compare with the oral poliomyelitis vaccine (OPV) used in routine vaccination.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>The 2-month-old children were randomly immunized with IPV and OPV, with 208 subjects in each group. The pre- and post-vaccination blood samples were collected. Micro-neutralization method was used to measure the antibody response against 3 types of polioviruses. chi2 test was used to evaluate the statistical difference of protection rates between two groups, while the antibody titers were transformed by logarithm and analyzed by Z-test. P < 0.05 was always used to define the significance of analysis.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>After 3 doses of immunization, the protection rates in IPV group reached to 100.0% (186/186), 97.3% (181/186), 98.9% (184/186) for poliovirus type 1, 2, 3, respectively, and in OPV group were 97.4% (188/193), 100.0% (193/193), 95.3% (184/193), respectively. The geometry mean titers (GMTs) were 151.2, 86.7, 211.3 for IPV group; and 1089.5, 538.2, 203.7 for OPV group. IPV showed comparable protection rates with OPV for type 1 and 2 (chi2(I) = 2.991, P = 0.084; chi2(II) = 3.512, P = 0.061), while type 3 was higher than OPV (chi2(III) = 4.143, P = 0.042). The GMT of type 1 and 2 in IPV group were lower than OPV group (Z(I) = 12.537, P = 0.000; Z(II) = 13.415, P = 0.000), while the GMT of type 3 were comparable in two groups (Z(III) = 0.067, P = 0.947).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>IPV showed roughly comparable immunological effectiveness in young children. The protection rates for type 1 and 2 were similar to OPV, while type 3 was higher than in OPV group; In terms of GMT,type 1 and 2 in IPV group were lower than OPV, but type 3 were comparable to OPV group.</p>

Study on the safety and immunogenicity of MF59-adjuvanted influenza subunit vaccine in Chinese elderly / 中华流行病学杂志

Objective To compare the safety and immunogenicity between a MF59-adjuvanted influenza subunit vaccine and a conventional non-adjuvanted influenza subunit vaccine.Methods A randomized, blind-designed controlled study was carried out, with 600 subjects (≥60 years of age)received MF59-adjuvanted influenza subunit vaccine (FLUAD(R), n=400) or conventional non-adjuvanted influenza subunit vaccine (Agrippal(R), n = 200) respectively. The local and systemic reactions were observed on 0-7 days after vaccination. Haemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers of pre-and post-vaccination were detected by the HI assay. Seroconversion (4-fold increase) rate of subjects was calculated using baseline data when it was under naive level, and the protection rate when HI titer achieving the level of protection(≥1:40) after vaccination.Geometric mean titer(GMT) and its increasing folds were calculated.Differences between safety and immunogenicity were also calculated. Results The local and systemic reaction rates were similar between both groups, but the duration in injection site was frequent for Agrippal(R)(P＜0.05), while mild pain and fever in injection site were frequent for FLUAD(R). On immunogenicity test, for those subjects whose baseline was under naive level while the seroconversion rate against A/H3N2 viral strain after vaccination - FLUAD(R) was significantly higher than Agrippal(R) (P＜0. 001). Aside from A/H1N1 viral strain, the rate of protection on both groups were significantly higher than those from baseline data, but for A/H3N2 viral strain, FLUAD(R) was significantly higher than Agrippal(R) (P＜0. 001 ). GMT was higher than baseline (P＜0. 001 ) after both groups being vaccinated but FLUAD(R) group was significantly higher than Agrippal(R) group. Conclusion FLUAD(R) was well tolerated by Chinese elderly and its immunogenicity level induced by FLUAD(R) was higher than that of Agrippal(R), showing that it would benefit the elderly with hypoimmunity.

Evaluation on the safety and immunogenicity of Canada split influenza virus vaccine / 中华流行病学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of Canada split influenza virus vaccine.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Cluster samples were by randomly chosen and divided into split vaccination group and homoimported influenza vaccination group.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>After injection, fever-reaction and local reaction rates of 'trial' group were found as 3.69% and 1.75% respectively, but no statistical significance was found when compared with 'control' group. However the antibody positive rates of 'trail' and 'control' groupsappeared statistically significant (H1N1: 96.8% vs. 92.3%, H3N2: 95.8% vs. 90.2%, B: 52.3% vs. 62.3%). For geometric mean titer (GMT) of type H1N1, H3H2 and B antibody, 'trial' group and 'control' group increased 22.4, 16.8, 8.2 and 21.2, 12.5 and 7.4 times respectively. The antibody protective rates of type H1N1, H3N2 and B were 99%, 99% and 53.9% for 'trial' group, and 96.2%, 98.4% and 62.3% for 'control' but with no statistically significant difference.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Influenza split vaccine made in Shire company in Canada was safe and with good immunogenicity.</p>

Safety and immunogenicity of split vaccines of influenza viruses / 中华实验和临床病毒学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of influenza split vaccine.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>According to the criteria of No.2002SL0043, instruction of application for new drug in clinical trial issued by the State Food and Drug Administration, 876 healthy persons were divided at random into vaccine group and control group. The trial was performed with the double blind method. Local and systemic adverse reactions were observed within 3 days after the vaccine group subjects were vaccinated. The antibody response to vaccines was detected with hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test. Numbers of seroconversions and HI titers greater than or equal to 40, as well as the mean geometric titer increase in HI were analyzed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There was no significant difference in local and systemic adverse reaction between vaccine and control groups. Meanwhile there was also no significant difference in seroconversions and protective level between two groups. However, there was obvious difference in mean geometric titer increase of antibody against H1N1 virus, while there was no significant difference in that of antibodies to H3N2 and type B viruses.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The safety and immunogenicity of both vaccines are excellent.</p>