Safety and immunogenicity of 2010–2011 A/H1N1pdm09-containing trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in adults previously given AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 2009 pandemic vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Canadians received a novel AS03-adjuvanted vaccine during the 2009 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic. Longer term implications of adjuvant use were unclear: would anti-H1N1 immune responses persist at high levels and, if so, could that result in increased or unusual adverse effects upon re-exposure to H1N1pdm09 antigen in the trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) for 2010-11? To answer these questions, adults given AS03-adjuvanted H1N1pdm09 vaccine (Arepanrix®, GSK Canada) 9-10 mo earlier were enrolled in an evaluator-blinded, crossover trial to receive 2010-2011 non-adjuvanted TIV (Fluviral®, GSK Canada) and placebo 10 d apart, in random order. Adverse effects were monitored for 7 d after each injection. Vaccine-attributable adverse event (VAAE) rates were calculated by subtracting rates after placebo from those after vaccine. Blood was obtained pre-vaccination and 21-30 d afterward to measure hemagglutination inhibiting antibody titers. In total, 326 participants were enrolled and 321 completed the study. VAAE rates were low except for myalgia (18.6%) and injection site pain (63.2%). At baseline, H1N1pdm09 titers ≥ 40 were present in 176/325 subjects (54.2%, 95% confidence interval 48.6, 59.7), with a geometric mean titer (GMT) of 37.4 (95% CI 32.8, 42.6). Post-immunization, 96.0% (95% CI 92.3, 97.8) had H1N1pdm09 titers ≥ 40, with GMT of 167.4 (95% CI 148.7, 188.5). Responses to both influenza A strains in TIV were similar, implying no lasting effect of adjuvant exposure. In summary, titers ≥ 40 persisted in only half the participants 9-10 mo after adjuvanted pandemic vaccine but were restored in nearly all after TIV vaccination, with minimal increase in adverse effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".