↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of an optimized manufacturing process for inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, safety and immunogenicity study in children and adults

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of an optimized manufacturing process for inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, safety and immunogenicity study in children and adults
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3079-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carine Claeys, Mamadou Drame, José García-Sicilia, Khalequ Zaman, Alfonso Carmona, Phu My Tran, Mariano Miranda, Federico Martinón-Torres, Franck Thollot, Michael Horn, Tino F. Schwarz, Ulrich Behre, José M. Merino, Iwona Sadowska-Krawczenko, Henryk Szymański, Peter Schu, Elisabeth Neumeier, Ping Li, Varsha K. Jain, Bruce L. Innis

Abstract

GSK has modified the licensed monovalent bulk manufacturing process for its split-virion inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) to harmonize the process among different strains, resulting in an increased number of finished vaccine doses, while compensating for the change from inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (IIV3) to IIV4. To confirm the manufacturing changes do not alter the profile of the vaccine, a clinical trial was conducted to compare IIV4 made by the currently licensed process with a vaccine made by the new (investigational) process (IIV4-I). The main objectives were to compare the reactogenicity and safety of IIV4-I versus IIV4 in all age groups, and to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibody responses based on the geometric mean titer ratio of IIV4-I versus IIV4 in children. The Phase III, randomized, double-blind, multinational study included three cohorts: adults (18-49 years; N = 120), children (3-17 years; N = 821), and infants (6-35 months; N = 940). Eligible subjects in each cohort were randomized 1:1 to receive IIV4-I or IIV4. Both vaccines contained 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen for each of the four seasonal virus strains. Adults and vaccine-primed children received one dose of vaccine, and vaccine-unprimed children received two doses of vaccine 28 days apart. All children aged ≥9 years were considered to be vaccine-primed and received one dose of vaccine. The primary immunogenicity objective of the study was met in demonstrating immunogenic non-inferiority of IIV4-I versus IIV4 in children. The IIV4-I was immunogenic against all four vaccine strains in each age cohort. The reactogenicity and safety profile of IIV4-I was similar to IIV4 in each age cohort, and there was no increase in the relative risk of fever (≥38 °C) with IIV4-I versus IIV4 within the 7-day post-vaccination period in infants (1.06; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.75, 1.50; p = 0.786). The study demonstrated that in adults, children, and infants, the IIV4-I made using an investigational manufacturing process was immunogenic with a reactogenicity and safety profile that was similar to licensed IIV4. These results support that the investigational process used to manufacture IIV4-I is suitable to replace the current licensed process. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02207413 ; trial registration date: August 4, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 19 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Psychology 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 20 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#13,592,375
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,409
of 7,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,597
of 327,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#48
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.