LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 10 of total 12

Search options

  1. Article: Immunogenicity and Safety of MF59-Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Compared with a Nonadjuvanted, Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Adults 50-64 Years of Age.

    Poder, Airi / Oberije, Janine / Meyer, Jay / Heymer, Peter / Molrine, Deborah / Versage, Eve / Isakov, Leah / Zhang, Qiuhong / Hohenboken, Matthew

    Vaccines

    2023  Volume 11, Issue 10

    Abstract: Adults aged 50-64 years have a high incidence of symptomatic influenza associated with substantial disease and economic burden each year. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to compare the immunogenicity and safety of an adjuvanted quadrivalent ... ...

    Abstract Adults aged 50-64 years have a high incidence of symptomatic influenza associated with substantial disease and economic burden each year. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to compare the immunogenicity and safety of an adjuvanted quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV4; n = 1027) with a nonadjuvanted standard dose IIV4 (n = 1017) in this population. Immunogenicity was evaluated on Days 22, 181, and 271. On Day 22, upper limits (UL) of 95% confidence intervals (CI) for geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios (IIV4/aIIV4) were <1.5 and 95% CI ULs for the difference in seroconversion rate (SCR IIV4 - aIIV4) were <10% for all four vaccine strains, meeting primary endpoint noninferiority criteria. Protocol-defined superiority criteria (95% CI ULs < 1.0) were also met for A(H1N1) and A(H3N2). Immune responses following aIIV4 vaccination were more pronounced in persons with medical comorbidities and those not recently vaccinated against influenza. Safety data were consistent with previous studies of MF59 adjuvanted seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines. These findings support the immunological benefit of aIIV4 for persons aged 50-64 years, especially those with comorbidities.
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-09-26
    Publishing country Switzerland
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 2703319-3
    ISSN 2076-393X
    ISSN 2076-393X
    DOI 10.3390/vaccines11101528
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article: Is the FDA too conservative or too aggressive?: A Bayesian decision analysis of clinical trial design

    Isakov, Leah / Lo, Andrew W / Montazerhodjat, Vahid

    Journal of econometrics. 2019 July, v. 211, no. 1

    2019  

    Abstract: Implicit in the drug-approval process is a host of decisions—target patient population, control group, primary endpoint, sample size, follow-up period, etc.—all of which determine the trade-off between Type I and Type II error. We explore the application ...

    Abstract Implicit in the drug-approval process is a host of decisions—target patient population, control group, primary endpoint, sample size, follow-up period, etc.—all of which determine the trade-off between Type I and Type II error. We explore the application of Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to minimize the expected cost of drug approval, where the relative costs of the two types of errors are calibrated using U.S. Burden of Disease Study 2010 data. The results for conventional fixed-sample randomized clinical-trial designs suggest that for terminal illnesses with no existing therapies such as pancreatic cancer, the standard threshold of 2.5% is substantially more conservative than the BDA-optimal threshold of 23.9% to 27.8%. For relatively less deadly conditions such as prostate cancer, 2.5% is more risk-tolerant or aggressive than the BDA-optimal threshold of 1.2% to 1.5%. We compute BDA-optimal sizes for 25 of the most lethal diseases and show how a BDA-informed approval process can incorporate all stakeholders’ views in a systematic, transparent, internally consistent, and repeatable manner.
    Keywords Bayesian theory ; burden of disease ; clinical trials ; decision support systems ; drugs ; econometric models ; economic analysis ; economic theory ; pancreatic neoplasms ; patients ; prostatic neoplasms ; stakeholders ; United States
    Language English
    Dates of publication 2019-07
    Size p. 117-136.
    Publishing place Elsevier B.V.
    Document type Article
    ZDB-ID 1460617-3
    ISSN 0304-4076
    ISSN 0304-4076
    DOI 10.1016/j.jeconom.2018.12.009
    Database NAL-Catalogue (AGRICOLA)

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Article ; Online: Comparability of Titers of Antibodies against Seasonal Influenza Virus Strains as Determined by Hemagglutination Inhibition and Microneutralization Assays.

    Heeringa, Marten / Leav, Brett / Smolenov, Igor / Palladino, Giuseppe / Isakov, Leah / Matassa, Vincent

    Journal of clinical microbiology

    2020  Volume 58, Issue 9

    Abstract: We compared titers of antibodies against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B influenza virus strains collected pre- and postvaccination using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) assays and data from two vaccine trials: study 1, performed with ...

    Abstract We compared titers of antibodies against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B influenza virus strains collected pre- and postvaccination using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) assays and data from two vaccine trials: study 1, performed with a cell-grown trivalent influenza vaccine (TIVc) using cell-grown target virus in both assays, and study 2, performed with an egg-grown adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIVe) using egg-grown target virus. The relationships between HI- and MN-derived log-transformed titers were examined using different statistical techniques. Deming regression analyses showed point estimates for slopes generally close to 1 across studies and strains. The slope of regression was closest to 1 for A/H3N2 strain when either cell- or egg-grown viral target virus was used. Bland-Altman plots indicated a very small percentage of results outside 2 and 3 standard deviations. The magnitudes and directions of differences between titers in the two assays varied by study and strain. Mean differences favored the MN assay for A/H1N1 and B strains in study 1, whereas the titers determined by HI were higher than those determined by MN against the A/H3N2 strain. In study 2, mean differences favored the MN assay for A/H3N2 and B strains. Overall, the directions and magnitudes of the mean differences were similar between the two vaccines. The concordance correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.74 (A/H1N1 strain, study 1) to 0.97 (A/H3N2 strain, study 1). The comparative analysis demonstrates an overall strong positive correlation between the HI and MN assays. These data support the use of the MN assay to quantify the immune response of influenza vaccines in clinical studies, particularly for the A/H3N2 strain.
    MeSH term(s) Antibodies, Viral ; Hemagglutination ; Hemagglutination Inhibition Tests ; Humans ; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype ; Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype ; Influenza, Human/prevention & control ; Seasons
    Chemical Substances Antibodies, Viral
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-08-24
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
    ZDB-ID 390499-4
    ISSN 1098-660X ; 0095-1137
    ISSN (online) 1098-660X
    ISSN 0095-1137
    DOI 10.1128/JCM.00750-20
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  4. Article ; Online: Statistical Primer on Biosimilar Clinical Development.

    Isakov, Leah / Jin, Bo / Jacobs, Ira Allen

    American journal of therapeutics

    2016  Volume 23, Issue 6, Page(s) e1903–e1910

    Abstract: A biosimilar is highly similar to a licensed biological product and has no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference (originator) product in terms of safety, purity, and potency and is approved under specific ... ...

    Abstract A biosimilar is highly similar to a licensed biological product and has no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference (originator) product in terms of safety, purity, and potency and is approved under specific regulatory approval processes. Because both the originator and the potential biosimilar are large and structurally complex proteins, biosimilars are not generic equivalents of the originator. Thus, the regulatory approach for a small-molecule generic is not appropriate for a potential biosimilar. As a result, different study designs and statistical approaches are used in the assessment of a potential biosimilar. This review covers concepts and terminology used in statistical analyses in the clinical development of biosimilars so that clinicians can understand how similarity is evaluated. This should allow the clinician to understand the statistical considerations in biosimilar clinical trials and make informed prescribing decisions when an approved biosimilar is available.
    MeSH term(s) Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Drug Approval ; Drug Discovery ; Humans ; Statistics as Topic ; Terminology as Topic
    Chemical Substances Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals
    Language English
    Publishing date 2016-01-13
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Review
    ZDB-ID 1280786-2
    ISSN 1536-3686 ; 1075-2765
    ISSN (online) 1536-3686
    ISSN 1075-2765
    DOI 10.1097/MJT.0000000000000391
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  5. Article ; Online: A cost/benefit analysis of clinical trial designs for COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

    Berry, Donald A / Berry, Scott / Hale, Peter / Isakov, Leah / Lo, Andrew W / Siah, Kien Wei / Wong, Chi Heem

    PloS one

    2020  Volume 15, Issue 12, Page(s) e0244418

    Abstract: We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional and adaptive randomized clinical trials and human challenge trials. ... ...

    Abstract We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional and adaptive randomized clinical trials and human challenge trials. Using epidemiological models calibrated to the current pandemic, we simulate the time course of each clinical trial design for 756 unique combinations of parameters, allowing us to determine which trial design is most effective for a given scenario. A human challenge trial provides maximal net benefits-averting an additional 1.1M infections and 8,000 deaths in the U.S. compared to the next best clinical trial design-if its set-up time is short or the pandemic spreads slowly. In most of the other cases, an adaptive trial provides greater net benefits.
    MeSH term(s) COVID-19/epidemiology ; COVID-19/prevention & control ; COVID-19/therapy ; COVID-19/virology ; COVID-19 Vaccines/standards ; COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Humans ; Pandemics ; SARS-CoV-2/drug effects ; SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
    Chemical Substances COVID-19 Vaccines
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-12-23
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
    ZDB-ID 2267670-3
    ISSN 1932-6203 ; 1932-6203
    ISSN (online) 1932-6203
    ISSN 1932-6203
    DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0244418
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  6. Article ; Online: A cost/benefit analysis of clinical trial designs for COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

    Donald A Berry / Scott Berry / Peter Hale / Leah Isakov / Andrew W Lo / Kien Wei Siah / Chi Heem Wong

    PLoS ONE, Vol 15, Iss 12, p e

    2020  Volume 0244418

    Abstract: We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional and adaptive randomized clinical trials and human challenge trials. ... ...

    Abstract We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional and adaptive randomized clinical trials and human challenge trials. Using epidemiological models calibrated to the current pandemic, we simulate the time course of each clinical trial design for 756 unique combinations of parameters, allowing us to determine which trial design is most effective for a given scenario. A human challenge trial provides maximal net benefits-averting an additional 1.1M infections and 8,000 deaths in the U.S. compared to the next best clinical trial design-if its set-up time is short or the pandemic spreads slowly. In most of the other cases, an adaptive trial provides greater net benefits.
    Keywords Medicine ; R ; Science ; Q
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

  7. Article ; Online: Assessing the Value of Biosimilars: A Review of the Role of Budget Impact Analysis.

    Simoens, Steven / Jacobs, Ira / Popovian, Robert / Isakov, Leah / Shane, Lesley G

    PharmacoEconomics

    2017  Volume 35, Issue 10, Page(s) 1047–1062

    Abstract: Biosimilar drugs are highly similar to an originator (reference) biologic, with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety or efficacy. As biosimilars offer the potential for lower acquisition costs versus the originator biologic, evaluating ...

    Abstract Biosimilar drugs are highly similar to an originator (reference) biologic, with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety or efficacy. As biosimilars offer the potential for lower acquisition costs versus the originator biologic, evaluating the economic implications of the introduction of biosimilars is of interest. Budget impact analysis (BIA) is a commonly used methodology. This review of published BIAs of biosimilar fusion proteins and/or monoclonal antibodies identified 12 unique publications (three full papers and nine congress posters). When evaluated alongside professional guidance on conducting BIA, the majority of BIAs identified were generally in line with international recommendations. However, a lack of peer-reviewed journal articles and considerable shortcomings in the publications were identified. Deficiencies included a limited range of cost parameters, a reliance on assumptions for parameters such as uptake and drug pricing, a lack of expert validation, and a limited range of sensitivity analyses that were based on arbitrary ranges. The rationale for the methods employed, limitations of the BIA approach, and instructions for local adaptation often were inadequately discussed. To understand fully the potential economic impact and value of biosimilars, the impact of biosimilar supply, manufacturer-provided supporting services, and price competition should be included in BIAs. Alternative approaches, such as cost minimization, which requires evidence demonstrating similarity to the originator biologic, and those that integrate a range of economic assessment methods, are needed to assess the value of biosimilars.
    MeSH term(s) Antibodies, Monoclonal/economics ; Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use ; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/economics ; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/therapeutic use ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Humans ; Recombinant Fusion Proteins/economics ; Recombinant Fusion Proteins/therapeutic use
    Chemical Substances Antibodies, Monoclonal ; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals ; Recombinant Fusion Proteins
    Language English
    Publishing date 2017-06-29
    Publishing country New Zealand
    Document type Journal Article ; Review
    ZDB-ID 1100273-6
    ISSN 1179-2027 ; 1170-7690
    ISSN (online) 1179-2027
    ISSN 1170-7690
    DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0529-x
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  8. Article ; Online: A Cost/Benefit Analysis of Clinical Trial Designs for COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates

    Berry, Donald / Berry, Scott / Hale, Peter / Isakov, Leah / Lo, Andrew / Siah, Kien Wei / Wong, Chi Heem

    medRxiv

    Abstract: We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional randomized clinical trials and adaptive and human challenge trials. ... ...

    Abstract We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional randomized clinical trials and adaptive and human challenge trials. Using epidemiological models calibrated to the current pandemic, we simulate the time course of each clinical trial design for 504 unique combinations of parameters, allowing us to determine which trial design is most effective for a given scenario. A human challenge trial provides maximal net benefits---averting an additional 1.1M infections and 8,000 deaths in the U.S. compared to the next best clinical trial design---if its set-up time is short or the pandemic spreads slowly. In most of the other cases, an adaptive trial provides greater net benefits.
    Keywords covid19
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-09-18
    Publisher Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    Document type Article ; Online
    DOI 10.1101/2020.09.15.20195495
    Database COVID19

    Kategorien

  9. Article ; Online: Biosimilars for the Treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review of Published Evidence.

    Jacobs, Ira / Petersel, Danielle / Isakov, Leah / Lula, Sadiq / Lea Sewell, K

    BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy

    2016  Volume 30, Issue 6, Page(s) 525–570

    Abstract: Background: Clinicians are required to assimilate, critically evaluate, and extrapolate information to support appropriate use of biosimilars across indications.: Objectives: The objective of this study was to systematically collate all published ... ...

    Abstract Background: Clinicians are required to assimilate, critically evaluate, and extrapolate information to support appropriate use of biosimilars across indications.
    Objectives: The objective of this study was to systematically collate all published data in order to assess the weight (quantity and quality) of available evidence for each molecule and inform and support healthcare decision-making in chronic inflammatory diseases.
    Methods: MEDLINE
    Results: Proposed biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab are reported in the published literature. Across indications, approved biosimilars infliximab CT-P13, SB2, and etanercept SB4 have published studies involving the largest number of patients or healthy subjects (n = 1405, 743, and 734, respectively), mostly in rheumatoid arthritis. At data cut-off, only CT-P13 had published data in ankylosing spondylitis (n = 250; randomized control trial) and ulcerative colitis/Crohn's disease (n = 336; observational studies). Published data were not available for ongoing studies in psoriasis patients. Four intended copies were identified in published studies (total: n = 1430; n = 1372 in observational studies). Thematic analysis of non-empirical publications showed that indication extrapolation remains an issue, particularly for gastroenterologists.
    Conclusions: While most agents display a moderate to high degree of similarity to their originator in the published studies identified, large discrepancies persist in the overall amount and type of data available in the public domain. Significant gaps exist particularly for intended copies, reinforcing the need to maintain a clear differentiation between these molecules and true biosimilars.
    MeSH term(s) Adalimumab/pharmacology ; Adalimumab/therapeutic use ; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use ; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/pharmacokinetics ; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/therapeutic use ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Colitis, Ulcerative/drug therapy ; Crohn Disease/drug therapy ; Etanercept/pharmacology ; Etanercept/therapeutic use ; Humans ; Inflammation/drug therapy ; Infliximab/pharmacology ; Infliximab/therapeutic use ; Rituximab/pharmacology ; Rituximab/therapeutic use ; Serial Publications/statistics & numerical data ; Spondylitis, Ankylosing/drug therapy
    Chemical Substances Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal ; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals ; Rituximab (4F4X42SYQ6) ; Infliximab (B72HH48FLU) ; Adalimumab (FYS6T7F842) ; Etanercept (OP401G7OJC)
    Language English
    Publishing date 2016-09-08
    Publishing country New Zealand
    Document type Journal Article ; Review ; Systematic Review
    ZDB-ID 1364202-9
    ISSN 1179-190X ; 1173-8804
    ISSN (online) 1179-190X
    ISSN 1173-8804
    DOI 10.1007/s40259-016-0201-6
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  10. Article ; Online: Efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety evaluation of an MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza virus vaccine compared with non-adjuvanted influenza vaccine in children: a multicentre, randomised controlled, observer-blinded, phase 3 trial.

    Vesikari, Timo / Kirstein, Judith / Devota Go, Grace / Leav, Brett / Ruzycky, Mary Ellen / Isakov, Leah / de Bruijn, Marianne / Oberye, Janine / Heijnen, Esther

    The Lancet. Respiratory medicine

    2018  Volume 6, Issue 5, Page(s) 345–356

    Abstract: Background: Young children have immature immune systems and respond poorly to standard influenza vaccines. The oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant MF59 can increase antigen uptake, macrophage recruitment, lymph node migration, and avidity to influenza virus. ...

    Abstract Background: Young children have immature immune systems and respond poorly to standard influenza vaccines. The oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant MF59 can increase antigen uptake, macrophage recruitment, lymph node migration, and avidity to influenza virus. Therefore, we aimed to assess the relative efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an MF59-adjuvanted, quadrivalent, inactivated (subunit) influenza vaccine (aIIV4) compared with a US-licensed non-adjuvanted influenza vaccine in children.
    Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised controlled, observer-blinded, phase 3 trial of 146 sites including hospitals, clinics, and clinician offices in nine countries over two influenza seasons. We included children of either sex aged 6 months through 5 years. We stratified eligible participants and randomly assigned them (1:1), using a block size of four, to receive either aIIV4 or non-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (ie, trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine [IIV3] or quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine [IIV4]). We masked participants, parents or guardians, and outcome assessors to the administered vaccine. Designated personnel who were not masked administered aIIV4 in both seasons, or IIV3 in season one and IIV4 in season two. All vaccinations were administered intramuscularly. Children aged 6 through 35 months received one or two 0·25 mL doses, whereas those aged 3 through 5 years received one or two doses of 0·5 mL. The number of doses was dependent on previous vaccination status: vaccine-naive participants received a total of two doses of study vaccine, the first on day 1 and the second on day 29, whereas non-naive participants received only one dose on day 1. The primary outcome was relative vaccine efficacy assessed by RT-PCR-confirmed influenza due to any influenza strain in the overall study population and in prespecified age and dose subgroups. Immunogenicity against homologous and heterologous strains of influenza and safety were also measured. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01964989.
    Findings: Between Nov 3, 2013, and March 5, 2014 (season one), and between Sept 30, 2014, and March 29, 2015 (season two), 10 644 participants were enrolled in this study. Of these participants, 10 612 were vaccinated (n=5338 with aIIV4 and n=5274 with comparator). Relative vaccine efficacy was not different between aIIV4 and the comparator vaccines in the overall study population (relative vaccine efficacy -0·67, 95% CI -19·81 to 15·41). The relative vaccine efficacy in the 6 through 23-month subgroup was significantly greater for aIIV4 than for the comparator vaccine (relative vaccine efficacy 31·37, 95% CI 3·14-51·38). aIIV4 elicited superior immunogenic response compared with the comparator for all four vaccine strains (geometric mean titre ratios 1·91 [95% CI 1·8-2·0] for A/H1N1, 1·71 [1·6-1·8] for A/H3N2, 2·19 [2·0-2·4] for B/Yamagata, and 2·27 [2·0-2·6] for B/Victoria) and three heterologous strains (1·94 [1·6-2·3] for A/H3N2, 2·17 [1·8-2·6] for B/Yamagata, and 2·12 [1·6-2·7] for B/Victoria) in participants aged 6 months through 5 years. The highest geometric mean titre ratios were observed in participants aged 6 through 23 months. Safety profiles were similar but more frequent solicited adverse events were reported with aIIV4 than with the comparator (3748 [73%] of 5138 vs 3242 [64%] of 5056).
    Interpretation: Although there was no additional benefit of aIIV4 compared with the US-licensed non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines in the overall study population, in the youngest and most vulnerable population of children in this trial, aIIV4 provided greater protection against influenza than a non-adjuvanted vaccine when assessed in this prespecified age group of 6 through 23 months. Additional clinical benefit was also apparent early after first vaccination in vaccine-naive participants aged 6 months through 5 years. Finally, aIIV4 and comparator had similar efficacy and vaccine safety profiles in children aged 6 months through 5 years.
    Funding: Seqirus UK Ltd.
    MeSH term(s) Adjuvants, Immunologic/administration & dosage ; Age Factors ; Child, Preschool ; Female ; Humans ; Infant ; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology ; Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/immunology ; Influenza B virus/immunology ; Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage ; Influenza Vaccines/immunology ; Influenza, Human/prevention & control ; Male ; Polysorbates/administration & dosage ; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Single-Blind Method ; Squalene/administration & dosage ; Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage ; Vaccines, Inactivated/immunology
    Chemical Substances Adjuvants, Immunologic ; Influenza Vaccines ; MF59 oil emulsion ; Polysorbates ; Vaccines, Inactivated ; Squalene (7QWM220FJH)
    Language English
    Publishing date 2018-04-06
    Publishing country England
    Document type Clinical Trial, Phase III ; Journal Article ; Multicenter Study ; Randomized Controlled Trial ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
    ZDB-ID 2686754-0
    ISSN 2213-2619 ; 2213-2600
    ISSN (online) 2213-2619
    ISSN 2213-2600
    DOI 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30108-5
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

To top