MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2192811108 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h6291

Safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine in young people with egg allergy: multicentre prospective cohort study

2015· article· en· W2192811108 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul Turner, Jo Southern, Nick Andrews, Elizabeth Miller, Michel Erlewyn‐Lajeunesse

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustPublic Health EnglandUniversity of OxfordUniversity College LondonKing's College LondonImperial College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCambridge University HospitalsUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustUniversity of CambridgeUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation TrustInstitute of Infection and ImmunityBarts Health NHS TrustAsthma and Lung UKKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation TrustSandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS TrustNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMedicineWheezeAsthmaVaccinationAllergyPediatricsPopulationCohortAnaphylaxisProspective cohort studyEgg allergyLive attenuated influenza vaccineCohort studyRespiratory tract infectionsInfluenza vaccineImmunologyInternal medicineFood allergyRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: How safe is live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), which contains egg protein, in young people with egg allergy? METHODS: In this open label, phase IV intervention study, 779 young people (2-18 years) with egg allergy were recruited from 30 UK allergy centres and immunised with LAIV. The cohort included 270 (34.7%) young people with previous anaphylaxis to egg, of whom 157 (20.1%) had experienced respiratory and/or cardiovascular symptoms. 445 (57.1%) had doctor diagnosed asthma or recurrent wheeze. Participants were observed for at least 30 minutes after vaccination and followed-up by telephone 72 hours later. Participants with a history of recurrent wheeze or asthma underwent further follow-up four weeks later. The main outcome measure was incidence of an adverse event within two hours of vaccination in young people with egg allergy. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: No systemic allergic reactions occurred (upper 95% confidence interval for population 0.47% and in participants with anaphylaxis to egg 1.36%). Nine participants (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.2%) experienced mild symptoms, potentially consistent with a local, IgE mediated allergic reaction. Delayed events potentially related to the vaccine were reported in 221 participants. 62 participants (8.1%, 95% CI for population 6.3% to 10.3%) experienced lower respiratory tract symptoms within 72 hours, including 29 with parent reported wheeze. No participants were admitted to hospital. No increase in lower respiratory tract symptoms occurred in the four weeks after vaccination (assessed with asthma control test). The study cohort may represent young people with more severe allergy requiring specialist input, since they were recruited from secondary and tertiary allergy centres. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: LAIV is associated with a low risk of systemic allergic reactions in young people with egg allergy. The vaccine seems to be well tolerated in those with well controlled asthma or recurrent wheeze. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: This report is independent research commissioned and funded by a Department of Health policy research programme grant to the National Vaccine Evaluation Consortium. Additional funding was provided by the NIHR Clinical Research Networks, Health Protection Scotland (Edinburgh site), and Health & Social Care Services in Northern Ireland (Belfast site). PJT and MEL had support from the Department of Health for the submitted work; PJT has received research grants from the Medical Research Council and NIHR. No additional data available.Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02111512) and the EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT (2014-001537-92).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207