Safety of Live-Attenuated Influenza Vaccination in Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Given the improved efficacy of the nasal live-attenuated influenza virus vaccine (LAIV) compared with the injectable vaccine in children, we aimed to determine its safety in individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: A cohort of 168 study participants, aged 2 to 18 years with CF, vaccinated with LAIV between October 1, 2012, and January 30, 2013, was followed prospectively for 56 days after initial vaccination in 3 pediatric CF clinics across the province of Quebec. Days 0 to 28 post-LAIV were considered the at-risk period for all outcomes of interest, and days 29 to 56 post-LAIV were considered the non-at-risk period. Incident respiratory deteriorations were defined as an unscheduled medical visit, hospitalization, or a new course of oral antibiotics for respiratory complaints. Using a self-controlled design, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were used to compare at-risk and non-at-risk periods. RESULTS: Comparing at-risk to non-at-risk periods, there was no significant increase in the rate of incident respiratory deteriorations (IRR, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-4.27) or all-cause hospitalizations (IRR, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-4.81). A greater proportion of participants reported experiencing at least 1 minor respiratory and/or systemic adverse event after immunization during the at-risk period compared with the non-at-risk period (77% vs 54%, respectively). During the first week after LAIV, 13 of 168 (8%) children reported some wheezing, with the vast majority, 9 of 13 (69%), on the day of vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: There was no increased risk of respiratory deterioration or all-cause hospitalization associated with LAIV in our study population. LAIV seems well tolerated in children and adolescents with CF.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| 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".