MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393215990 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciae173

A Phase 2 Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity of Different Prime-Boost Vaccination Schedules of 2013 and 2017 A(H7N9) Inactivated Influenza Virus Vaccines Administered With and Without AS03 Adjuvant in Healthy US Adults

2024· article· en· W4393215990 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christina A. Rostad, Robert L. Atmar, Emmanuel B. Walter, Sharon E. Frey, Jeffery L. Meier, Amy C Sherman, Lilin Lai, Rachel Tsong, Carol Kao, Vanessa Raabe, Hana M. El Sahly, Wendy A. Keitel, Jennifer A. Whitaker, Michael J. Smith, Kenneth E. Schmader, Geeta K. Swamy, Getahun Abate, Patricia Winokur, Wendy Buchanan, Kaitlyn Cross, Ashley Wegel, Yongxian Xu, İnci Yıldırım, Satoshi Kamidani, Nadine Rouphael, Paul C. Roberts, Mark J. Mulligan, Evan J. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNYU Grossman School of MedicineDivision of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesBiomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityCenters for Disease Control and PreventionSchool of Medicine, Emory UniversityBavarian NordicUniversité Saint-LouisChildren's Healthcare of AtlantaBioFire DiagnosticsBaylor College of MedicineGilead SciencesSanofiUniversity of IowaBill and Melinda Gates FoundationYork UniversityModernaPfizerGeorgia Research AllianceSaint Louis UniversityEmory UniversityDuke UniversityEli Lilly and CompanyRegeneron PharmaceuticalsNational Institutes of HealthNovavaxSanofi PasteurAdministration for Strategic Preparedness and ResponseU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesSeqirus
KeywordsReactogenicityMedicineImmunogenicityVaccinationVirologyClinical trialTrivalent influenza vaccineInfluenza vaccineImmunologyInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A surge of human influenza A(H7N9) cases began in 2016 in China from an antigenically distinct lineage. Data are needed about the safety and immunogenicity of 2013 and 2017 A(H7N9) inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) and the effects of AS03 adjuvant, prime-boost interval, and priming effects of 2013 and 2017 A(H7N9) IIVs. METHODS: Healthy adults (n = 180), ages 19-50 years, were enrolled into this partially blinded, randomized, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 vaccination groups evaluating homologous versus heterologous prime-boost strategies with 2 different boost intervals (21 vs 120 days) and 2 dosages (3.75 or 15 μg of hemagglutinin) administered with or without AS03 adjuvant. Reactogenicity, safety, and immunogenicity measured by hemagglutination inhibition and neutralizing antibody titers were assessed. RESULTS: Two doses of A(H7N9) IIV were well tolerated, and no safety issues were identified. Although most participants had injection site and systemic reactogenicity, these symptoms were mostly mild to moderate in severity; injection site reactogenicity was greater in vaccination groups receiving adjuvant. Immune responses were greater after an adjuvanted second dose, and with a longer interval between prime and boost. The highest hemagglutination inhibition geometric mean titer (95% confidence interval) observed against the 2017 A(H7N9) strain was 133.4 (83.6-212.6) among participants who received homologous, adjuvanted 3.75 µg + AS03/2017 doses with delayed boost interval. CONCLUSIONS: Administering AS03 adjuvant with the second H7N9 IIV dose and extending the boost interval to 4 months resulted in higher peak antibody responses. These observations can broadly inform strategic approaches for pandemic preparedness. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03589807.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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