Immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccination in children with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Protection against vaccine-preventable diseases is important in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) because of increased susceptibility and severity of infection with immunosuppressive therapy. However, immunosuppressive therapy may affect vaccine response. This study aimed to evaluate immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccination in children with IBD. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 60 children with IBD and 53 healthy controls had serum collected for preimmunization hemagglutination-inhibition antibody titers to the 2008 inactivated influenza vaccine components. Three to 5 weeks following vaccine [A/Brisbane/10/2007(H3N2), A/Brisbane/59/2007(H1N1), B/Florida/4/2006] administration, all participants had serum collected for postimmunization titers. A 4-fold or greater increase between pre- and postimmunization titers indicated an immunogenic response; a postimmunization titer ≥1:40 indicated serologic protection. Children with IBD were classified into immunosuppression status by therapy. RESULTS: Seventy percent, 72%, and 53% of children with IBD mounted an immunogenic response to H3N2, H1N1, and influenza B components, respectively. Among children with IBD, serologic protection was achieved in 95%, 98%, and 85% to H3N2, H1N1, and influenza B components, respectively. For influenza B, children with IBD were less likely to mount an immunogenic response compared to controls (53% versus 81%, P = 0.0009), and immunosuppressed children with IBD were less likely to achieve serologic protection compared to nonimmunosuppressed children with IBD (79% versus 100%, P = 0.02). The majority (98%) tolerated the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Although children with IBD achieve appropriate immunogenicity to influenza A, immunogenicity to influenza B appears to be diminished, especially with immunosuppressive therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".