MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118542348 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.470

160. Safety and Immunogenicity of Escalating Dose Formulations of High-dose Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Children 6 Months Through < 18 Years of Age

2020· article· en· W3118542348 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lee-Jah Chang, Evan J. Anderson, Robert Jeanfreau, Ying He, Bryony Hicks, Anju Shrestha, Aseem Pandey, Rawia Khoury, Iris De Bruijn, Victoria Landolfi

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReactogenicityMedicineVaccinationSeroconversionAdverse effectImmunogenicityHemagglutinin (influenza)Influenza vaccineTrivalent influenza vaccineInternal medicinePediatricsImmunologyVirusAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Children do not respond immunologically as well as adults to standard-dose (SD) influenza vaccination and remain at increased risk of influenza and its complications. A method to improve efficacy in children may be to increase antigen amount per dose, a successful strategy used in older adults. Trivalent high-dose (HD) influenza vaccine (60ug hemagglutinin/strain) showed significantly improved effectiveness for prevention of clinical outcomes related to influenza in adults ≥65 years; moreover, a quadrivalent HD formulation was approved by US FDA (2019) for use in this group. Methods A Phase 2, randomized, modified double blind study (NCT03698279) was conducted in US and Canadian children to evaluate safety and immunogenicity of IIV4-HD compared to an IIV4-SD and adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV3). Children (n=661, 6 months through < 18 years) were assigned to receive intramuscularly 1 of 3 formulations of IIV4-HD (30, 45, or 60 µg HA/strain/dose), a licensed IIV4-SD, or a licensed aIIV3. Depending on child’s previous influenza vaccination status and age, they received 1 or 2 doses of study vaccine 28 days apart. Post-vaccination (28 days after each vaccination) geometric mean titers (GMTs) and seroconversion rates were measured using hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) assay. Reactogenicity data were collected through 1 week; safety data were collected through 6 months post-vaccination. Results IIV4-HD was more reactogenic than IIV4-SD, but unsolicited related adverse events were similar (Table 1). No related serious adverse events or deaths occurred. A dose-related increase in HAI GMT ratio was observed across the age range for A/H3N2 but only in children 6 months through < 3 years for A/H1N1 and the 2 B strains (Table 2). Compared with IIV4-SD, the 60 µg HA/strain/dose formulation of IIV4-HD generated highest HAI GMT ratios and high seroconversion rates for all 4 strains in US children 6 months through < 3 years. Canadian children receiving IIV4-HD generated HAI titers incongruent to those of US children receiving IIV4-HD, limiting direct comparison against aIIV3. Safety Overview (US and Canadian subjects 6 months through <18 years) HAI GMT Ratios (QIV-HD/QIV-SD) at 28 days After the Last Vaccination (US subjects 6 months through <18 years) Conclusion The favorable safety profile and the HAI GMT ratios support pediatric dose selection of 60µg HA/strain/dose as most appropriate to evaluate in Phase 3. Disclosures Leejah Chang, MD, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee) Evan J. Anderson, MD, Sanofi Pasteur (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert Jeanfreau, MD, Sanofi Pasteur (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Ying He, PhD, Otsuka Pharmaceutical (Employee)Sanofi Pasteur (Other Financial or Material Support, Former employee) Bryony Hicks, BSc, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee) Anju Shrestha, MD, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee) Aseem Pandey, PhD, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee)Sanofi Pasteur (Employee) Rawia Khoury, BSc, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee) Iris De Bruijn, PhD, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee) Victoria Landolfi, MS, MBA, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee)

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207