Comparative Immunogenicity of Several Enhanced Influenza Vaccine Options for Older Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced influenza vaccines may improve protection for older adults, but comparative immunogenicity data are limited. Our objective was to examine immune responses to enhanced influenza vaccines, compared to standard-dose vaccines, in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Community-dwelling older adults aged 65-82 years in Hong Kong were randomly allocated (October 2017-January 2018) to receive 2017-2018 Northern hemisphere formulations of a standard-dose quadrivalent vaccine, MF59-adjuvanted trivalent vaccine, high-dose trivalent vaccine, or recombinant-hemagglutinin (rHA) quadrivalent vaccine. Sera collected from 200 recipients of each vaccine before and at 30-days postvaccination were assessed for antibodies to egg-propagated vaccine strains by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and to cell-propagated A/Hong Kong/4801/2014(H3N2) virus by microneutralization (MN). Influenza-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses were assessed in 20 participants per group. RESULTS: Mean fold rises (MFR) in HAI titers to egg-propagated A(H1N1) and A(H3N2) and the MFR in MN to cell-propagated A(H3N2) were statistically significantly higher in the enhanced vaccine groups, compared to the standard-dose vaccine. The MFR in MN to cell-propagated A(H3N2) was highest among rHA recipients (4.7), followed by high-dose (3.4) and MF59-adjuvanted (2.9) recipients, compared to standard-dose recipients (2.3). Similarly, the ratio of postvaccination MN titers among rHA recipients to cell-propagated A(H3N2) recipients was 2.57-fold higher than the standard-dose vaccine, which was statistically higher than the high-dose (1.33-fold) and MF59-adjuvanted (1.43-fold) recipient ratios. Enhanced vaccines also resulted in the boosting of T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS: In this head-to-head comparison, older adults receiving enhanced vaccines showed improved humoral and cell-mediated immune responses, compared to standard-dose vaccine recipients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03330132.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".