A Double-Blind, Randomized Trial of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine in Adult Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The annual standard-dose (SD) influenza vaccine has suboptimal immunogenicity in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Influenza vaccine that contains higher doses of antigens may lead to greater immunogenicity in this population. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial to compare the safety and immunogenicity of the 2016-2017 high-dose (HD; FluzoneHD, Sanofi) vs SD (Fluviral, GSK) influenza vaccine in adult SOTRs. Preimmunization and 4-week postimmunization sera underwent strain-specific hemagglutination inhibition assay. Results: We enrolled 172 patients who received study vaccine, and 161 (84 HD; 77 SD) were eligible for analysis. Seroconversion to at least 1 of 3 vaccine antigens was present in 78.6% vs 55.8% in HD vs SD vaccine groups (P < .001), respectively. Seroconversions to A/ H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains were 40.5% vs 20.5%, 57.1% vs 32.5%, and 58.3% vs 41.6% in HD vs SD vaccine groups (P = .006, P = .002, P = .028, respectively). Post-immunization geometric mean titers of A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains were significantly higher in the HD group (P = .007, P = .002, P = .033). Independent factors associated with seroconversion to at least 1 vaccine strain were the use of HD vaccine (odds ratio [OR], 3.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56-6.67) and use of mycophenolate doses <2 g daily (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.12-6.76). Conclusions: HD vaccine demonstrated significantly better immunogenicity than SD vaccine in adult transplant recipients and may be the preferred influenza vaccine for this population. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03139565.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".