Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:16:30.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to influenza vaccine in adjuvant 65-4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. W. G. Smith ,
W. B. Fletcher ,
Martin Peters ,
M. Westwood  and
F. J. Perkins
J. W. G. Smith
Affiliation:
Epidemiological Research Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
W. B. Fletcher
Affiliation:
Epidemiological Research Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
Martin Peters
Affiliation:
Occupational Health Department, B.O.C. Cryoplants, Angel Road, London N18 3BW
M. Westwood
Affiliation:
National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Hampstead, London, NW3 6RB
F. J. Perkins
Affiliation:
National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Hampstead, London, NW3 6RB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A comparison was made of the antibody response and subjective reactions to zonally-purified influenza vaccine in aqueous suspension and in peanut oil adjuvant 65-4. Both preparations contained 700 CCA units of A/Aichi/2/68, and 300 CCA units of B/Mass/1/71.

Subjective reactions were recorded by asking the volunteers to complete a record daily for 5 days. Pain at the injection site was recorded by 64% of the recipients of the oil adjuvant vaccine compared with 35% of the aqueous recipients, but local redness was more frequent after aqueous vaccine. Systemic symptoms were recorded a little more frequently after aqueous than oil adjuvant vaccine.

When measured 7½ weeks after a single dose of vaccine, the HAI geometric mean antibody titre (G.M.T.) to the A/Hong Kong/1/68 antigen (antigenically similar to the A/Aichi/2/68 antigen in the vaccine) increased 2·7-fold after aqueous and 16·4-fold after adjuvant vaccine. Sixty-two weeks after vaccination the antibody titres remained higher in those given adjuvant vaccine. The G.M.T. to B/Mass/1/71 increased 1·9-fold 7½ weeks after aqueous vaccine and 3·7-fold after adjuvant vaccine.

The antibody response to both influenza A and B antigens was broader in the recipients of adjuvant vaccine. The G.M.T. to A/England/42/72 increased 2·8-fold after aqueous and 13-fold after adjuvant vaccine; and to B/England/847/73 it increased 1·3-fold after aqueous and 1·9-fold after adjuvant vaccine.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 251 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

References

REFERENCES

Beebe, G. W., Simon, A. H. & Vivona, S. (1972). Long-term mortality follow-up of army-recruits who received adjuvant influenza virus vaccine in 1951–1953. American Journal of Epidemiology 95, 337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eickhoff, T. C. (1971). Immunization against influenza. Rationale and recommendations. Committee on Immunization of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Journal of Infectious Diseases 123, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilleman, M. R. (1966). Critical appraisal of emulsified oil adjuvants applied to viral vaccines. Progress in Medical Virology 8, 131.Google ScholarPubMed
Hilleman, M. R. (1970). In Proceedings of an International Conference on the Application of Vaccines against Viral, Rickettsial, and Bacterial Diseases of Man, December 1970, pp. 425–6. Pan American Health Organization, Washington DC. 1971.Google Scholar
Hilleman, M. R., Woodhour, A. F., Friedman, A. & Weibel, R. E. (1973). The safety and efficacy of emulsified peanut oil adjuvant 65 when applied to influenza virus vaccine. In International Symposium on vaccination against communicable disease. Symposium series in Immunobiological Standardization 22, 107–22. Basel: S. Karger.Google Scholar
Hobson, D., Curry, R. L., Beare, A. S. & Ward-Gardner, A. (1972). The role of serum haemagglutination-inhibiting antibody in protection against challenge infection with influenza A2 and B viruses. Journal of Hygiene 70, 767.Google ScholarPubMed
Medical Research Council (1964). Clinical trials of oil adjuvant influenza vaccines, 1960–63. British Medical Journal ii, 267.Google Scholar
Murray, R. (1970). In Proceedings of an International Conference on the Application of Vaccines against Viral, Rickettsial, and Bacterial Diseases of Man, December 1970, pp. 422–3. Pan American Health Organization, Washington DC. 1971.Google Scholar
Pereira, M. S., Chakraverty, P., Schild, G. C., Coleman, M. T. & Dowdle, W. R. (1972). Prevalence of antibody to current influenza viruses and effect of vaccination on antibody response. British Medical Journal ii, 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
P.H.L.S. (1973). Influenza B in 1973. British Medical Journal iii, 302.Google Scholar
Smith, J. W. G., Fletcher, W. B. & Wherry, P. J. (1974). Reactions to injected influenza vaccine. In Proceedings of a Symposium on Immunity to Respiratory Infections. Progress in Immunobiological Standardization (in the Press).Google Scholar
Stokes, J., Weibel, R. E., Drake, M. E., Woodhour, A. F. & Hilleman, M. R. (1964). New metabolizable immunologic adjuvant for human use. 3. Efficacy and toxicity studies in man. New England Journal of Medicine 271, 479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuart-Harris, C. H. (1969). Adjuvant influenza vaccines. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 41, 617.Google ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (1953). World Health Organization Technical Report Series No. 64.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1973). Weekly Epidemiological Record No. 19, 48, 209.Google Scholar