Randomized trial of same- versus opposite-arm coadministration of inactivated influenza and SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDThe immunogenicity of current influenza vaccines needs improvement. Inactivated influenza and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can be coadministered, but randomized controlled trial data are lacking on whether the 2 vaccines are more immunogenic if given in the same arm or opposite arms. Murine studies suggest mRNA vaccines can adjuvant influenza vaccines when coformulated and codelivered.METHODSWe randomly assigned 56 adults to receive the Afluria quadrivalent inactivated influenza and Moderna monovalent SARS-CoV-2 XBB.1.5 mRNA vaccines, either in opposite arms or both in the same arm at the same site. The primary endpoint was the difference in median combined serum hemagglutination inhibition titer to the H1, H3, and B-Vic vaccine influenza strains after vaccination.RESULTSWe found no significant difference in hemagglutination inhibition antibody levels between the groups (P = 0.30), with the same-arm group having a 1.26-fold higher titer than the opposite-arm group. There were no differences in analyses of antibodies against individual influenza strains or in nasal or saliva antibody levels. While both binding and neutralizing antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 were not significantly different between groups postvaccination, there was a higher fold-change in BA.5 and ancestral strain neutralizing antibodies in the opposite-arm group.CONCLUSIONInfluenza vaccination is equivalently immunogenic if given in the same arm or opposite arms as the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, but it may be preferable to administer the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at a different site from influenza vaccines.TRIAL REGISTRATIONAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12624000445572.FUNDINGAustralian National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Medical Research Future Fund, and National Institutes of Health (UH2AI176172).
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".