Immunogenicity and Safety of an Intradermal Boosting Strategy for Vaccination Against Influenza in Lung Transplant Recipients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The immunogenicity of influenza vaccine is suboptimal in lung transplant recipients. Use of a booster dose and vaccine delivery by the intradermal rather than intramuscular route may improve response. We prospectively evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of a 2‐dose boosting strategy of influenza vaccine. Sixty lung transplant recipients received a standard intramuscular injection of the 2006–2007 inactivated influenza vaccine, followed 4 weeks later by an intradermal booster of the same vaccine. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of geometric mean titer of antibodies after both the intramuscular injection and the intradermal booster. Vaccine response was defined as 4‐fold or higher increase of antibody titers to at least one vaccine antigen. Thirty‐eight out of 60 patients (63%) had a response after intramuscular vaccination. Geometric mean titers increased for all three vaccine antigens following the first dose (p < 0.001). However, no significant increases in titer were observed after the booster dose for all three antigens. Among nonresponders, 3/22 (13.6%) additional patients responded after the intradermal booster (p = 0.14). The use of basiliximab was associated with a positive response (p = 0.024). After a single standard dose of influenza vaccine, a booster dose given by intradermal injection did not significantly improve vaccine immunogenicity in lung transplant recipients. The immunogenicity of influenza vaccine is suboptimal in lung transplant recipients. Use of a booster dose and vaccine delivery by the intradermal rather than intramuscular route may improve response. We prospectively evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of a 2‐dose boosting strategy of influenza vaccine. Sixty lung transplant recipients received a standard intramuscular injection of the 2006–2007 inactivated influenza vaccine, followed 4 weeks later by an intradermal booster of the same vaccine. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of geometric mean titer of antibodies after both the intramuscular injection and the intradermal booster. Vaccine response was defined as 4‐fold or higher increase of antibody titers to at least one vaccine antigen. Thirty‐eight out of 60 patients (63%) had a response after intramuscular vaccination. Geometric mean titers increased for all three vaccine antigens following the first dose (p < 0.001). However, no significant increases in titer were observed after the booster dose for all three antigens. Among nonresponders, 3/22 (13.6%) additional patients responded after the intradermal booster (p = 0.14). The use of basiliximab was associated with a positive response (p = 0.024). After a single standard dose of influenza vaccine, a booster dose given by intradermal injection did not significantly improve vaccine immunogenicity in lung transplant recipients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».