Randomized comparison of the safety of Flublok® versus licensed inactivated influenza vaccine in healthy, medically stable adults ≥50 years of age

被引:22
|
作者
Izikson, Ruvim [1 ]
Leffell, David J. [2 ]
Bock, S. Allan [3 ]
Patriarca, Peter A. [4 ]
Post, Penny [1 ]
Dunkle, Lisa M. [1 ]
Cox, Manon M. J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Prot Sci Corp, Meriden, CT USA
[2] Yale Univ, Sch Med, New Haven, CT USA
[3] Univ Colorado Denver, Sch Med, Aurora, CO USA
[4] Biol Consulting Grp Inc, Bethesda, MD USA
关键词
Influenza vaccine; Recombinant hemagglutinin vaccine; Flublok; Allergic reaction; IMMUNE-RESPONSES; HEMAGGLUTININ; IMMUNOGENICITY; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.10.097
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background: The safety and tolerability of Flublok (R), a purified recombinant hemagglutinin seasonal influenza vaccine, was compared to AFLURIA (R) in a randomized, blinded clinical trial in adults >= 50 years of age with attention to hypersensitivity reactions. Methods: This blinded, randomized trial of healthy adults >= 50 years of age compared safety of Flublok vs. AFLURIA with respect to pre-specified possible hypersensitivity: "rash," "urticaria," "swelling" and "non-dependent edema:" solicited reactogenicity and unsolicited adverse events. Subject-reported outcomes were collected for 30 days after vaccination. All adverse event terms were reviewed by physicians blinded to vaccine group, who added other terms possibly reflecting hypersensitivity. Case records of subjects with possible hypersensitivity were adjudicated by independent experts blinded to treatment assignment to identify likely hypersensitivity reactions. Non-inferiority of the incidence of hypersensitivity in the two vaccine groups was pre-defined as an absolute difference with an upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence limits <= 0.015. Results: A total of 2640 subjects were enrolled, evenly split in age cohorts of 50-64 and >= 65 years. Fifty-two subjects reported at least one term possibly representing hypersensitivity, with a slight imbalance of 31 on Flublok and 21 on AFLURIA. The adjudicators determined that six and four subjects on Flublok and AFLURIA, respectively, likely met clinical criteria for hypersensitivity, yielding a difference in incidence between the two vaccine groups of 0.15% (upper bound of 2-sided 95% CI = 0.9%). Reactogenicity and overall adverse event profiles were similar across both vaccines. Conclusions: Flublok was non-inferior to AFLURIA in adults >= 50 years of age with respect to expert-adjudicated events of likely hypersensitivity during 30 days following vaccination. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:6622 / 6628
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Randomized Comparison of Immunogenicity and Safety of Quadrivalent Recombinant Versus Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Healthy Adults 18-49 Years of Age
    Dunkle, Lisa M.
    Izikson, Ruvim
    Patriarca, Peter A.
    Goldenthal, Karen L.
    Muse, Derek
    Cox, Manon M. J.
    JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2017, 216 (10) : 1219 - 1226
  • [2] Safety and immunogenicity of a quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine compared to licensed trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in adults
    Greenberg, David P.
    Robertson, Corwin A.
    Noss, Michael J.
    Blatter, Mark M.
    Biedenbender, Rex
    Decker, Michael D.
    VACCINE, 2013, 31 (05) : 770 - 776
  • [3] Evaluation of the safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of FluBlok® trivalent recombinant baculovirus-expressed hemagglutinin influenza vaccine administered intramuscularly to healthy adults 50-64 years of age
    Baxter, R.
    Patriarca, P. A.
    Ensor, K.
    Izikson, R.
    Goldenthal, K. L.
    Cox, M. M.
    VACCINE, 2011, 29 (12) : 2272 - 2278
  • [4] Immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent versus trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine: a randomized, controlled trial in adults
    Beran, Jiri
    Peeters, Mathieu
    Dewe, Walthere
    Raupachova, Jolana
    Hobzova, Lenka
    Devaster, Jeanne-Marie
    BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2013, 13
  • [5] Immunogenicity, reactogenicity and safety of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine candidate versus inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine: a phase III, randomized trial in adults aged ≥18 years
    Kieninger, Dorothee
    Sheldon, Eric
    Lin, Wen-Yuan
    Yu, Chong-Jen
    Bayas, Jose M.
    Gabor, Julian J.
    Esen, Meral
    Fernandez Roure, Jose Luis
    Narejos Perez, Silvia
    Sanchez, Carmen Alvarez
    Feng, Yang
    Claeys, Carine
    Peeters, Mathieu
    Innis, Bruce L.
    Jain, Varsha
    BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2013, 13
  • [6] Safety and immunogenicity of high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in adults 50-64 years of age
    DiazGranados, Carlos A.
    Saway, William
    Gouaux, James
    Baron, Mira
    Baker, Jeffrey
    Denis, Martine
    Jordanov, Emilia
    Landolfi, Victoria
    Yau, Eddy
    VACCINE, 2015, 33 (51) : 7188 - 7193
  • [7] Immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent versus trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine: a randomized, controlled trial in adults
    Jiří Beran
    Mathieu Peeters
    Walthère Dewé
    Jolana Raupachová
    Lenka Hobzová
    Jeanne-Marie Devaster
    BMC Infectious Diseases, 13
  • [8] Efficacy of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine in Adults 50 Years of Age or Older
    Dunkle, Lisa M.
    Izikson, Ruvim
    Patriarca, Peter
    Goldenthal, Karen L.
    Muse, Derek
    Callahan, Janice
    Cox, Manon M. J.
    NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2017, 376 (25) : 2427 - 2436
  • [9] Comparison of Side Effects of the 2015-2016 High-Dose, Inactivated, Trivalent Influenza Vaccine and Standard Dose, Inactivated, Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Adults ≥ 65 Years
    Kaka, Anjum S.
    Filice, Gregory A.
    Myllenbeck, Sharon
    Nichol, Kristin L.
    OPEN FORUM INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2017, 4 (01):
  • [10] Safety and immunogenicity of a Proteosome™-trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine, given nasally to healthy adults
    Langley, JM
    Halperin, SA
    McNeil, S
    Smith, B
    Jones, T
    Burt, D
    Mallett, CP
    Lowell, GH
    Fries, L
    VACCINE, 2006, 24 (10) : 1601 - 1608