Original Article
A Clinical Trial of a Whole-Virus H5N1 Vaccine Derived from Cell Culture
N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2573-2584June 12, 2008
- Abstract
Background
Widespread infections of avian species with avian influenza H5N1 virus and its limited spread to humans suggest that the virus has the potential to cause a human influenza pandemic. An urgent need exists for an H5N1 vaccine that is effective against divergent strains of H5N1 virus.
Methods
In a randomized, dose-escalation, phase 1 and 2 study involving six subgroups, we investigated the safety of an H5N1 whole-virus vaccine produced on Vero cell cultures and determined its ability to induce antibodies capable of neutralizing various H5N1 strains. In two visits 21 days apart, 275 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years received two doses of vaccine that each contained 3.75 μg, 7.5 μg, 15 μg, or 30 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with alum adjuvant or 7.5 μg or 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant. Serologic analysis was performed at baseline and on days 21 and 42.
Results
The vaccine induced a neutralizing immune response not only against the clade 1 (A/Vietnam/1203/2004) virus strain but also against the clade 2 and 3 strains. The use of adjuvants did not improve the antibody response. Maximum responses to the vaccine strain were obtained with formulations containing 7.5 μg and 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant. Mild pain at the injection site (in 9 to 27% of subjects) and headache (in 6 to 31% of subjects) were the most common adverse events identified for all vaccine formulations.
Conclusions
A two-dose vaccine regimen of either 7.5 μg or 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant induced neutralizing antibodies against diverse H5N1 virus strains in a high percentage of subjects, suggesting that this may be a useful H5N1 vaccine. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00349141.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Enrollment and Outcomes.Figure 2
Reverse Cumulative Distribution Curves for Titers of Neutralizing Antibodies in Six Study Groups after the First and Second Doses of Vaccine against Three Strains of Avian Influenza.Article Activity
- Article
The emergence of a new human influenza pandemic caused by an avian virus strain is possible. Vaccination against pandemic influenza is considered to be the most effective option to limit its spread. However, the conventional approaches to the manufacture of influenza vaccines have a number of disadvantages and raise concern about whether sufficient quantities of an effective vaccine can be made available early enough at the onset of a pandemic to have a major effect on public health.1 In addition, clinical studies of conventional split-vaccine formulations without adjuvant have shown poor immunogenicity.2,3 It has been suggested that whole-virus vaccines have the potential to be more immunogenic than split-virus or subunit vaccines in previously unvaccinated populations.4,5 The first clinical study of a whole-virus vaccine against avian influenza H5N1 virus showed that a substantially reduced antigen dosage (10 μg) with an alum formulation induced seroconversion in nearly 100% of subjects.6
All these studies were carried out with vaccines manufactured by conventional methods (i.e., with the use of embryonated chicken eggs and modified, attenuated reassortant viruses produced by reverse genetics).7 We have devised a strategy for the development of an H5N1 vaccine that involves the use of a wild-type virus (i.e., the strain circulating in nature) grown in a Vero cell culture. This strategy has the advantage that the lead time for pandemic vaccine production can be reduced, since the generation of attenuated reassortants is not required, although the requirement for the use of enhanced biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) facilities for such a strategy is a relative drawback. In addition, cell culture provides a robust manufacturing platform that eliminates dependence on embryonated chicken eggs, which would be an advantage in the event of limited availability of such eggs during a pandemic caused by a highly pathogenic avian virus. This technique was used to develop a whole-virus vaccine that was highly immunogenic in animal models.8 We report on the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine, using formulations with and without alum adjuvant.
Methods
Study Design and Objective
From June 2006 through September 2006, we enrolled a total of 284 men and women between the ages of 18 and 45 years in a randomized, partially blinded (between groups) clinical trial at three sites: one in Austria and two in Singapore. The study was designed by its sponsor, Baxter. Data were collected by the investigators and were held and analyzed by Baxter. The manuscript was written by a subgroup of industry and academic authors; all authors contributed to the content, had full access to the data, and vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and data analysis.
The appropriate local review boards and ethics committees approved the protocol for the study, which was conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study investigators were unaware of assignments to study groups. (For details of the study design, see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org.)
The objective was to identify the immunogenicity and safety of various doses of inactivated H5N1 whole-virus vaccine in formulations with and without adjuvant. The primary immunogenicity outcome was the number of subjects with hemagglutination-inhibition and neutralizing antibodies to the vaccine strain (A/Vietnam/1203/2004) 21 days after the first and second doses of vaccine. The primary safety outcome was any systemic reaction after the first and second doses.
Vaccine
The monovalent avian influenza H5N1 whole-virus vaccine (Baxter) was produced with the wild-type strain A/Vietnam/1203/2004, which was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was inactivated with formalin and ultraviolet light. The vaccine was manufactured in Vero cell culture in an enhanced BSL-3 facility (as required for wild-type H5N1 virus), as described previously.9
Randomization and Follow-up
Subjects were eligible to participate if they were clinically healthy, understood the study procedures, provided written informed consent, and agreed to keep a daily record of symptoms. Women were required to have a negative pregnancy test at screening and before each vaccination.
Subjects were recruited in three study cohorts in a dose-escalating manner and were randomly assigned to receive two 0.5-ml injections into the deltoid muscle at an interval of 21 days (range, 19 to 23) with an H5N1 whole-virus formulation containing 3.75 μg, 7.5 μg, 15 μg, or 30 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with a 0.2% alum adjuvant or 7.5 μg or 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant. There was no placebo group. Subjects and investigators were unaware of the dose of vaccine administered within the subgroups (Figure 1Figure 1
Enrollment and Outcomes., and the Supplementary Appendix). Blood samples were taken for serologic testing before the first dose of vaccine and on day 21 after the first and second doses.Using a diary provided by the investigators, subjects were asked to record daily oral body temperature (using study-issued digital thermometers), local reactions, and systemic adverse events for 7 days after each vaccination. On days 7 and 21 after each vaccination, subjects were asked to return for a review of the diary and assessment for any adverse events.
Assays
We evaluated all immunogenicity outcomes against the influenza-virus strain used in the vaccine (A/Vietnam/1203/2004) according to hemagglutination-inhibition and virus-neutralization assays. To assess cross-reactivity of antibodies, all assays were also conducted with known related influenza strains — for example, an original prototype clade 3 strain (A/Hong Kong/156/1997) and a clade 2 strain (A/Indonesia/05/2005).
Using a hemagglutination-inhibition or virus-neutralization assay, we investigated secondary immunogenicity outcomes by analyzing the antibody response 21 days after the first and second doses of vaccine; the increase in the antibody response 21 days after the first and second doses, as compared with baseline; and the number of subjects with seroconversion (which we defined as a minimum increase by a factor of 4 in the titer) 21 days after the first and second doses, as compared with baseline.
The hemagglutination-inhibition assay is the standard test for detection of antibodies against influenza after infection or vaccination. However, this assay may be insensitive for the detection of anti-H5 antibodies.10,11 For this reason, immunogenicity analyses focused on a determination of functional neutralizing-antibody responses. Since most licensing authorities typically request data regarding hemagglutination-inhibition assays or single radial hemolysis, these determinations are also reported but only for the vaccine virus strain A/Vietnam/1203/2004. (For details on hemagglutination-inhibition and virus-neutralization assays and single radial hemolysis,12-14 see the Supplementary Appendix.)
Statistical Analysis
The protocol called for the recruitment of 45 subjects per study group. With this number of subjects, the 95% confidence interval for the percentage of subjects with an antibody response that was associated with protection did not extend more than 15% from the observed rate, assuming a seroprotection rate of approximately 80%.
We used the likelihood-ratio chi-square test to compare the number of subjects with local or systemic reactions within 7 days after vaccination among the various vaccine formulations. For binary variables (i.e., seroprotection and seroconversion), response rates and 95% confidence intervals were computed for each strain and time point. The confidence intervals were interpreted in a descriptive manner, and no adjustment for multiplicity was made.15
In addition, for the log-transformed values of virus-neutralization titers and single radial hemolysis, a longitudinal analysis was performed within a repeated mixed-model framework of analysis of covariance. Changes from baseline were analyzed, accounting for the fixed effects of vaccine formulation, day, sex, age, baseline titer, interaction between the vaccine formulation and day, and random effects for subjects. Vaccine formulations without adjuvant were compared with formulations with adjuvant within this model. Comparisons were also made between groups receiving 7.5 μg and 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant. We calculated the proportion of subjects with a virus-neutralization titer of 1:20 or more and that of subjects with results of 25 mm2 or more on single radial hemolysis, using a generalized linear model with repeated measurements and the general-estimating-equations method (see the Supplementary Appendix).
Results
Study Population
A total of 275 subjects between the ages of 18 and 45 years received the first dose of vaccine, and 257 received the second dose. All vaccinated subjects were included in the safety analysis. Two subjects who initially gave their consent withdrew from the study because of nonserious adverse events, including four events in one subject (chills, fatigue, malaise, and insomnia) and one event in the second subject (papular rash); the majority of these symptoms abated within 24 hours. Immunogenicity data were available for 258 subjects for the first dose of vaccine and for 249 subjects for the second dose of vaccine.
Safety
The rates of occurrence of injection-site and systemic reactions during the first 7 days after each dose of vaccine are presented in Table 1Table 1
Proportion of Subjects with Injection-Site and Systemic Reactions within 7 Days after the First and Second Doses of Vaccine.. No serious, vaccine-related adverse events were recorded. There were two serious adverse events recorded in two subjects: hospitalization due to a contusion of the left foot and hospitalization for an elective abortion.The most commonly occurring injection-site reaction after vaccination was pain, which occurred in 9 to 27% of subjects; the most frequently reported systemic reaction was headache, which occurred in 6 to 31% of subjects.
There were no significant differences between the vaccine formulations with respect to local reactions after the first dose and the second dose of vaccine (P=0.32 and P=0.97, respectively, for all comparisons). With respect to systemic reactions, a slight difference was observed between the vaccine formulations after the first dose of vaccine (P=0.01), a finding that was largely due to an unexpectedly low rate of headache observed in the group receiving the 30-μg formulation with adjuvant. No difference was shown regarding systemic reactions after the second dose of vaccine (P=0.15).
Immune Response
At 21 days after the first and second doses, functional neutralizing antibodies against strain A/Vietnam/1203/2004 were detected in patients receiving any of the six formulations. Table 2Table 2
Proportion of Subjects with a Virus-Neutralization Antibody Titer of 1:20 or More. shows the rates of response in subjects with a virus-neutralization titer of 1:20 or more, and Table 3Table 3
Geometric Mean of the Increase from Baseline (GMI) and Proportion of Subjects with Seroconversion. shows the geometric mean increase (GMI) of the titer from baseline and the percentage of seroconversion. Numerically, the formulations without adjuvant induced the highest rates of a virus-neutralization titer of 1:20 or more after the first dose (40.5% and 39.5% for 7.5 μg and 15 μg without adjuvant, respectively) and the second dose (76.2% and 70.7% for 7.5 μg and 15 μg without adjuvant, respectively) (Table 2). Similar results were obtained with respect to GMI (Table 3), since the highest GMIs were obtained for the formulations without adjuvant (5.3 and 5.7 for 7.5 μg and 15 μg without adjuvant, respectively) (Table 3). Among subjects with seroconversion (an increase in the titer by a factor of at least 4 after immunization), the highest rates of response were again seen in subjects who received a 7.5-μg or 15-μg formulation without adjuvant (69.0% and 68.3%, respectively) (Table 3).Statistical analysis with the use of a mixed model on log-transformed virus-neutralization values confirmed that the formulations without adjuvant induced significantly higher immune responses than did the formulations with adjuvant (P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the two formulations without adjuvant or among the four formulations with adjuvant. All vaccine formulations showed a similar ratio of increase in antibody titer between day 21 and day 42, as shown by the nonsignificant interaction between vaccine formulation and day (Table 4Table 4
Mixed-Model Analysis of Log-Transformed Values of Virus-Neutralization Titer., and Table 4 in the Supplementary Appendix).Table 5Table 5
Antibody Response to the Homologous Virus Strain after the First and Second Doses of Vaccine. compares the presumed rates of seroprotection, as measured by hemagglutination-inhibition assay (i.e., the proportion of subjects with a titer ≥40) and single radial hemolysis (i.e., the proportion of subjects with an area of ≥25 m2 on single radial hemolysis). Numerically, the formulations without adjuvant again were more immunogenic than those with adjuvant. On single radial hemolysis, the percentage of seroprotection 21 days after the second dose of vaccine without adjuvant was 78.6% for the 7.5-μg dose and 61.0% for the 15-μg dose. Single radial hemolysis for H5N1 antibodies appeared to be more sensitive than hemagglutination-inhibition assay, since the equivalent values for hemagglutination-inhibition assay were 47.6% and 26.8%, respectively.We also analyzed changes from baseline in results on single radial hemolysis using a mixed-model analysis of covariance for the log-transformed values, and the results were similar to those obtained for the virus-neutralization titers. Again, we observed a significant effect of the vaccine formulations, with formulations without adjuvant showing higher response rates than those with adjuvant. There was no significant difference between the two formulations without adjuvant or among the formulations with adjuvant (Table 4, and Table 5 in the Supplementary Appendix).
Cross-Neutralization
The 7.5-μg and 15-μg formulations without adjuvant showed high levels of cross-reactivity against the A/Hong Kong strain (76.2% and 78.0%, respectively, with a neutralizing titer of ≥1:20) (Table 2). The responses against the clade 2 strain were somewhat lower (with rates of a virus-neutralization titer of ≥1:20 of 45.2% and 36.6% for the 7.5-μg and 15-μg formulations without adjuvant, respectively) (Table 2).
We also analyzed the virus-neutralization response to the heterologous strains using the mixed model. Results were similar to those for the homologous strain. Formulations without adjuvant elicited significantly higher immune responses than those with adjuvant. Antibody titers increased significantly from baseline, independently of the vaccine dose (Table 4, and Tables 3 and 4 in the Supplementary Appendix).
The reverse cumulative distribution curves for antibody titers after the first and second doses of vaccine against all three strains support the finding of higher immunogenicity from the formulations without adjuvant (Figure 2Figure 2
Reverse Cumulative Distribution Curves for Titers of Neutralizing Antibodies in Six Study Groups after the First and Second Doses of Vaccine against Three Strains of Avian Influenza.). Analysis of rates of seroprotection with homologous and heterologous immune responses showed results that were consistent with those obtained by direct analysis of values of virus-neutralization titers and single radial hemolysis (Tables 6 and 7 in the Supplementary Appendix).Discussion
It has been reported that whole-virus trivalent influenza vaccines are more immunogenic than subvirion vaccines but are also more prone to cause adverse reactions.5 In our study, a monovalent whole-virus H5N1 vaccine had a side-effect profile similar to that of subvirion H5N1 formulations described previously.2,3,16 Most important, the low rate of fever among subjects in our study (2 to 7%) compares favorably with that reported both for subvirion H5N1 vaccines and for an egg-derived whole-virus H5N1 vaccine with adjuvant.2,3,6,16 However, it should be noted that reporting systems and characteristics of the subjects differ among the various studies.
With respect to immunogenicity, the highest neutralizing-antibody response after the second dose of vaccine (76.2%) was obtained with the 7.5-μg formulation without adjuvant, which was equivalent to a rate of seroconversion of 69.0% and represented an increase by a factor of 4 or more in the neutralization titer after two doses of vaccine (Table 2 and Table 3). These data are also similar to the levels of immunogenicity reported in a study of an egg-derived whole-virus H5N1 vaccine, in which 96% of subjects who received two doses of 5-μg or 10-μg formulations had a neutralization titer of 1:20 or more,6 although differences in assay systems must be taken into account in making such direct comparisons.
Lower rates of seroprotection and seroconversion (as defined in the guidelines of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products17) were obtained with the hemagglutination-inhibition assay than with the virus-neutralization assay, which supports the finding that the hemagglutination-inhibition assay is less sensitive for detection of anti-H5 antibodies, as reported previously.10,11 In our study, single radial hemolysis, which is considered to have a sensitivity equivalent to that of the hemagglutination-inhibition assay for seasonal influenza strains,18 was shown to be more sensitive than the hemagglutination-inhibition assay for H5N1.
The lack of enhancement of vaccine immunogenicity by the use of alum adjuvant at the doses studied here was consistent with data from a previous study, which showed that no effect of alum adjuvant was seen with a 15-μg dose of subvirion vaccine, and a 7.5-μg formulation without alum was more immunogenic than the formulation with adjuvant.3 In the previous study, an enhanced immune response with the use of alum was seen only with the 30-μg formulation. We did not investigate this dose without alum in our study.
However, other studies have described substantial positive effects of other adjuvants on H5N1 immunogenicity. The use of an oil-in-water–based emulsion in a 3.8-μg dose of split-virus vaccine resulted in 82% seroconversion, as compared with 4% seroconversion without adjuvant.16 The addition of another oil-in-water–based adjuvant (MF-59) to an H5N3 vaccine was also associated with a substantial increase in antibody response.19
Our data also showed that the whole-virus clade 1–based vaccine can induce a substantial cross-neutralizing response against clade 2 and clade 3 strains. The results described in Table 2 are encouraging: after two doses of 7.5-μg of the formulation without adjuvant, the proportions of subjects with neutralizing titers of 1:20 or more were 45% of those immunized against the clade 2 Indonesia strain and 76% of those immunized against the clade 3 Hong Kong strain. However, there is no available evidence to indicate which neutralizing titer is sufficient to confer protection. Most studies of H5N1 split-virus and whole-virus vaccines have not described attempts to determine the cross-reactivity of antibodies to other H5N1 virus strains. However, a recent study of a novel split-virus vaccine with adjuvant also showed high levels of cross-neutralization against a clade 2 strain.16 In addition, in a study involving 15 subjects, two doses of an H5N3 vaccine with MF-59 as adjuvant induced intermediate levels of cross-reactivity to antigenically distinct H5N1 strains, and three doses induced high levels of cross-reactivity.20
The apparent absence of a dose–response relationship in our study may be surprising. However, it is in agreement with a number of studies of vaccine for pandemic influenza. Leroux-Roels et al. reported no relationship between the dose of antigen and the neutralizing-antibody response for H5N1 formulations with adjuvant,16 and there appeared to be an inverse dose–response relationship with respect to responses to the clade 2 strain. A number of other studies involving other pandemic-strain vaccines — H9N2,21 H5N3,19 and H2N222 — have shown no dose–response relationship or even a reduced response at higher doses. The reasons for these findings are unclear, but at least with respect to vaccines with adjuvant, it has been speculated that the ratio of adjuvant to antigen may be critical in determining the immune-enhancing effect rather than the antigen concentration alone.19 For other viral vaccines, particularly those with soluble proteins, it has been reported that there are distinct dose–response relationships for induction of various cytokines. In many studies, responses similar to those mediated by type 2 helper T cells have been elicited at low doses of vaccine, and responses similar to those mediated by type 1 helper T cells have been elicited at higher doses.23 Further studies focusing on T-cell responses will be required to investigate this phenomenon. In addition, these studies will be extended by the use of antigen doses lower than 3.75 μg to confirm and extend the results obtained in our study.
Our study provides initial safety and immunogenicity data for a whole-virus H5N1 vaccine produced on Vero cell culture. It also shows that a broadly reactive immune response to clade 2 and clade 3 of H5N1 virus can be obtained with the use of a low-dose clade 1 vaccine without adjuvant. Since we observed no significant dose–response relationship, the 7.5-μg formulation without adjuvant has been chosen for further development.
Supported by Baxter.
Drs. Ehrlich, Berezuk, Fritsch, Löw-Baselli, Vartian, Bobrovsky, Pavlova, Pöllabauer, Kistner, and Barrett report being employed by Baxter and having an equity interest in the company; Drs. Kistner and Barrett, holding patents on influenza vaccines derived from Vero cell cultures; Dr. Müller, receiving consulting and lecture fees and grant support (to the Medical University of Vienna) from Baxter; Dr. Tambyah, serving as a member of the Asia–Pacific Advisory Committee on Influenza and receiving consulting fees from Baxter, Merlion Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen-Cilag, lecture fees from Pfizer, Wyeth and IBC Asia, and grant support from Baxter and Interimmune; and Dr. Montomoli, receiving lecture fees and grant support (to the University of Siena) from Baxter. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Drs. Ehrlich and Müller contributed equally to this article.
This study is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Michel Canavaggio, head of bioscience research and development at Baxter and a great supporter of this project, who died in July 2006, about 6 weeks after the initiation of the study.
We thank the following members of the Baxter research and development team for their critical role in this study: L. Grillberger, K. Howard, W. Mundt, M. Reiter, H. Savidis-Dacho, C. Tauer, and W. Wodal; N. Cox and S. Klimov of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for providing the H5N1 viruses; and J. Wood of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control for providing the reference standards.
Source Information
From the Department of Global Research and Development, Baxter BioScience (H.J.E., G.B., S.F., A.L.-B., N.V., R.B., B.G.P., E.M.P., O.K., P.N.B.), and the Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital (M.M., C.J.) — both in Vienna; Changi General Hospital (H.M.L.O.) and the National University of Singapore and National University Hospital (P.A.T., D.F.) — all in Singapore; and the University of Siena, Siena, Italy (E.M.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Müller at the Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital (AKH), Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria, or at markus.mueller@meduniwien.ac.at.
Appendix
In addition to the authors, the following investigators contributed to the trial: Data Monitoring and Safety Board: E. Marth, R. Konior, F. Sonnenburg; Baxter Clinical Study Team: K. Birthistle, T. Dvorak, S. Geyer, M. Kraft, M.C. Leitgeb, F. Maritsch, L. Phillipson, E. Robotka. Austria: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital (Study Center Management), Vienna: A. Abrahim, M. Bauer, M. Brunner, A. Cornea, C. Drucker, Z. Erdogan, J. Griss, B. Heinisch, F. Kovar, E. Lackner, C. Lambers, O. Langer, I. Leitner, C. Marsik, W. Poeppl, M. Popovic, R. Sauermann, R. Schaberl, G. Sodeck, C. Thallinger, F. Traunmueller, C. Wagner, M. Zeitlinger; Singapore: Changi General Hospital (Study Center Management): S.K. Chua, S. Chuin, R. Fong, A.S. Foo, A.G. Koh, P.K. Lim, S.Y. Yap, L.H. Yew; National University Hospital (Study Center Management): J.W.L. Goh, L.Y. Hsu, C.W.P. Loke, J.Y.C. Ng, E.L. Toh, P. Weatherill, Y.P. Zhou.
- References
References
1
Wood JM . Selection of influenza vaccine strains and developing pandemic vaccines. Vaccine 2002;20:Suppl 5:40-44
CrossRef | Web of Science2
Treanor JJ ,Campbell JD ,Zangwill KM ,Rowe T ,Wolff M . Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated subvirion influenza A (H5N1) vaccine. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1343-1351
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline3
Bresson JL ,Perronne C ,Launay O , et al. Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated split-virion influenza A/Vietnam/1194/2004 (H5N1) vaccine: phase I randomised trial. Lancet 2006;367:1657-1664
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Wood JM . Developing vaccines against pandemic influenza. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2001;356:1953-1960
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Nicholson KG ,Tyrrell DAJ ,Harrison P , et al. Clinical studies of monovalent inactivated whole virus and subunit A/USSR/77 (H1N1) vaccine: serological responses and clinical reactions. J Biol Stand 1979;7:123-136
CrossRef | Medline6
Lin J ,Zhang J ,Dong X , et al. Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated adjuvanted whole-virion influenza A (H5N1) vaccine: phase 1 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;368:991-997
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Nicolson C ,Major D ,Wood JM ,Robertson JS . Generation of influenza vaccine viruses on Vero cells by reverse genetics: an H5N1 candidate vaccine strain produced under a quality system. Vaccine 2005;23:2943-2952
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Kistner O ,Howard K ,Spruth M , et al. Cell culture (Vero) derived whole-virus (H5N1) vaccine based on wild-type virus strain induces cross-protective immune responses. Vaccine 2007;25:6028-6036
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Kistner O ,Barrett PN ,Mundt W ,Reiter M ,Schober-Bendixen S ,Dorner F . Development of a mammalian cell (Vero)-derived candidate influenza virus vaccine. Vaccine 1998;16:960-968
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Rowe T ,Abernathy RA ,Hu-Primmer J , et al. Detection of antibody to avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in human serum by using a combination of serologic assays. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:937-943
Web of Science | Medline11
Lu BL ,Webster RG ,Hinshaw VS . Failure to detect hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies with intact avian influenza virions. Infect Immun 1982;38:530-535
Web of Science | Medline12
Stephenson I ,Wood JM ,Nicholson KG ,Charlett A ,Zambon MC . Detection of anti-H5 responses in human sera by HI using horse erythrocytes following MF59-adjuvanted influenza A/Duck/Singapore/97 vaccine. Virus Res 2004;103:91-95
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Reed LJ ,Muench H . A simple method of estimating fifty percent endpoints. Am J Hyg 1938;27:493-49714
Schild GC ,Pereira MS ,Chakraverty P . Single-radial-hemolysis: a new method for the assay of antibody to influenza haemagglutinin: applications for diagnosis and seroepidemiologic surveillance of influenza. Bull World Health Organ 1975;52:43-50
Web of Science | Medline15
Fitting a model that contains a random effect. In: Collett D. Modeling binary data. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 1991:202-12.
16
Leroux-Roels I ,Borkowski A ,Vanwolleghem T , et al. Antigen sparing and cross-reactive immunity with an adjuvanted rH5N1 prototype pandemic influenza vaccine: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:580-589
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Note for guidance on harmonisation of requirements for influenza vaccines. London: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, 1997. (Publication no. CPMP/BWP/214/96.)
18
Wood JM ,Gaines-Das RE ,Taylor J ,Charkraverty P . Comparison of influenza serological techniques by international collaborative study. Vaccine 1994;12:167-174
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Nicholson KG ,Colegate AE ,Podda A , et al. Safety and antigenicity of non-adjuvanted and MF59-adjuvanted influenza A/Duck/Singapore/97 (H5N3) vaccine: a randomised trial of two potential vaccines against H5N1 influenza. Lancet 2001;357:1937-1943
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Stephenson I ,Bugarini R ,Nicholson KG , et al. Cross-reactivity to highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 viruses after vaccination with nonadjuvanted and MF59-adjuvanted influenza A/Duck/Singapore/97 (H5N3) vaccine: a potential priming strategy. J Infect Dis 2005;191:1210-1215
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Stephenson I ,Nicholson KG ,Gluck R , et al. Safety and antigenicity of whole virus and subunit influenza A/Hong Kong/1073/99 (H9N2) vaccine in healthy adults: phase I randomised trial. Lancet 2003;362:1959-1966
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Hehme N ,Engelmann H ,Kuenzel W ,Neumeier E ,Saenger R . Immunogenicity of a monovalent, aluminum-adjuvanted influenza whole virus vaccine for pandemic use. Virus Res 2004;103:163-171
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Constant SL ,Bottomly K . Induction of TH1 and TH2 CD4+ T cell responses: the alternative approaches. Annu Rev Immunol 1997;15:297-322
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (66)
Citing Articles
1
Paul A. Tambyah, Annelies Wilder-Smith, Borislava G. Pavlova, P. Noel Barrett, Helen M.L. Oh, David S. Hui, Kwok-yung Yuen, Sandor Fritsch, Gerald Aichinger, Alexandra Loew-Baselli, Maikel van der Velden, Friedrich Maritsch, Otfried Kistner, Hartmut J. Ehrlich. (2012) Safety and immunogenicity of two different doses of a Vero cell-derived, whole virus clade 2 H5N1 (A/Indonesia/05/2005) influenza vaccine. Vaccine 30:2, 329-335
CrossRef2
R. Fritz, N. Sabarth, S. Kiermayr, C. Hohenadl, M. K. Howard, R. Ilk, O. Kistner, H. J. Ehrlich, P. N. Barrett, T. R. Kreil. (2012) A Vero Cell-Derived Whole-Virus H5N1 Vaccine Effectively Induces Neuraminidase-Inhibiting Antibodies. Journal of Infectious Diseases 205:1, 28-34
CrossRef3
Hartmut J. Ehrlich, Gregory Berezuk, Sandor Fritsch, Gerald Aichinger, Julia Singer, Daniel Portsmouth, Mary Kate Hart, Wael El-Amin, Otfried Kistner, P. Noel Barrett. (2011) Clinical development of a Vero cell culture-derived seasonal influenza vaccine. Vaccine
CrossRef4
Qunfeng Wu, Shaobo Xiao, Huiying Fan, Yang Li, Jinfang Xu, Zhen Li, Wei Lu, Xiaoyue Su, Wei Zou, Meilin Jin, Huanchun Chen, Liurong Fang. (2011) Protective immunity elicited by a pseudotyped baculovirus-mediated bivalent H5N1 influenza vaccine. Antiviral Research 92:3, 493-496
CrossRef5
Gerald Aichinger, Hartmut J. Ehrlich, John G. Aaskov, Sandor Fritsch, Christiane Thomasser, Wolfgang Draxler, Michael Wolzt, Markus Müller, Fritz Pinl, Pierre Van Damme, Annick Hens, Jack Levy, Daniel Portsmouth, Georg Holzer, Otfried Kistner, Thomas R. Kreil, P. Noel Barrett. (2011) Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated whole virus Vero cell-derived Ross River virus vaccine: A randomized trial. Vaccine 29:50, 9376-9384
CrossRef6
Jessica A. Belser, Cynthia B. Snider, Nancy J. Cox, Frederick G. Hayden. (2011) XIth International Symposium on Respiratory Viral Infections. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 5:6, 443-e457
CrossRef7
Thomas R. Kreil, John K. Mc Vey, Laura Shau-Ping Lei, Laureano Camacho, Walter Wodal, Astrid Kerschbaum, Edy Segura, Etienne Vandamme, Patrick Gavit, Hartmut J. Ehrlich, P. Noel Barrett, Donald A. Baker. (2011) Preparation of commercial quantities of a hyperimmune human intravenous immunoglobulin preparation against an emerging infectious disease: the example of pandemic H1N1 influenza. Transfusionno-no
CrossRef8
Jeremy C. Jones, Erik W. Settles, Curtis R. Brandt, Stacey Schultz-Cherry. (2011) Virus aggregating peptide enhances the cell-mediated response to influenza virus vaccine. Vaccine 29:44, 7696-7703
CrossRef9
Rebecca J. Cox, Gabriel Pedersen, Abdullah S. Madhun, Signe Svindland, Marianne Sævik, Lucy Breakwell, Katja Hoschler, Marieke Willemsen, Laura Campitelli, Jane Kristin Nøstbakken, Gerrit Jan Weverling, Jaco Klap, Kenneth C. McCullough, Maria Zambon, Ronald Kompier, Haakon Sjursen. (2011) Evaluation of a virosomal H5N1 vaccine formulated with Matrix M™ adjuvant in a phase I clinical trial. Vaccine 29:45, 8049-8059
CrossRef10
Yoichi Furuya. (2011) Return of inactivated whole-virus vaccine for superior efficacy. Immunology and Cell Biology
CrossRef11
Chunyan He, Zhiqiang Yang, Kuitang Tong. (2011) Downstream processing of Vero cell-derived human influenza A virus (H1N1) grown in serum-free medium. Journal of Chromatography A 1218:31, 5279-5285
CrossRef12
Michael L Perdue, Frank Arnold, Sheng Li, Armen Donabedian, Vittoria Cioce, Thomas Warf, Robert Huebner. (2011) The future of cell culture-based influenza vaccine production. Expert Review of Vaccines 10:8, 1183-1194
CrossRef13
K. K. Orlinger, Y. Hofmeister, R. Fritz, G. W. Holzer, F. G. Falkner, B. Unger, A. Loew-Baselli, E.-M. Poellabauer, H. J. Ehrlich, P. N. Barrett, T. R. Kreil. (2011) A Tick-borne Encephalitis Virus Vaccine Based on the European Prototype Strain Induces Broadly Reactive Cross-neutralizing Antibodies in Humans. Journal of Infectious Diseases 203:11, 1556-1564
CrossRef14
Derek T O’Hagan, Rino Rappuoli, Ennio De Gregorio, Theodore Tsai, Giuseppe Del Giudice. (2011) MF59 adjuvant: the best insurance against influenza strain diversity. Expert Review of Vaccines 10:4, 447-462
CrossRef15
Heng Liu, Laura Bungener, Wouter ter Veer, Beth-Ann Coller, Jan Wilschut, Anke Huckriede. (2011) Preclinical evaluation of the saponin derivative GPI-0100 as an immunostimulating and dose-sparing adjuvant for pandemic influenza vaccines. Vaccine 29:11, 2037-2043
CrossRef16
P Noel Barrett, Gregory Berezuk, Sandor Fritsch, Gerald Aichinger, Mary Kate Hart, Wael El-Amin, Otfried Kistner, Hartmut J Ehrlich. (2011) Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a Vero-cell-culture-derived trivalent influenza vaccine: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 377:9767, 751-759
CrossRef17
Shao-Zhen Feng, Pei-Rong Jiao, Wen-Bao Qi, Hui-Ying Fan, Ming Liao. (2011) Development and strategies of cell-culture technology for influenza vaccine. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 89:4, 893-902
CrossRef18
Atika Abelin, Tony Colegate, Stephen Gardner, Norbert Hehme, Abraham Palache. (2011) Lessons from pandemic influenza A(H1N1): The research-based vaccine industry's perspective. Vaccine 29:6, 1135-1138
CrossRef19
A. Roldão, A.C. Silva, M.C.M. Mellado, P.M. Alves, M.J.T. Carrondo. 2011. Viruses and Virus-Like Particles in Biotechnology. , 625-649.
CrossRef20
Brian A. Crowe, Peter Brühl, Marijan Gerencer, Michael G. Schwendinger, Andreas Pilz, Otfried Kistner, Katrin Koelling-Schlebusch, Gerald Aichinger, Julia Singer, Markus Zeitlinger, Markus Müller, Hartmut Ehrlich, P. Noel Barrett. (2010) Evaluation of the cellular immune responses induced by a non-adjuvanted inactivated whole virus A/H5N1/VN/1203 pandemic influenza vaccine in humans. Vaccine 29:2, 166-173
CrossRef21
Penghui Yang, Chong Tang, Deyan Luo, Zhongpeng Zhan, Li Xing, Yueqiang Duan, Weihong Jia, Daxin Peng, Xiufan Liu, Xiliang Wang. (2010) Cross-clade protection against HPAI H5N1 influenza virus challenge in BALB/c mice intranasally administered adjuvant-combined influenza vaccine. Veterinary Microbiology 146:1-2, 17-23
CrossRef22
Jiang Wu, Shu-Zhen Liu, Shan-Shan Dong, Xiao-Ping Dong, Wu-Li Zhang, Min Lu, Chang-Gui Li, Ji-Chen Zhou, Han-Hua Fang, Yan Liu, Li-Ying Liu, Yuan-Zheng Qiu, Qiang Gao, Xiao-Mei Zhang, Jiang-Ting Chen, Xiang Zhong, Wei-Dong Yin, Zi-Jian Feng. (2010) Safety and immunogenicity of adjuvanted inactivated split-virion and whole-virion influenza A (H5N1) vaccines in children: A phase I–II randomized trial. Vaccine 28:38, 6221-6227
CrossRef23
Felix Geeraedts, Vinay Saluja, Wouter Veer, Jean-Pierre Amorij, Henderik W. Frijlink, Jan Wilschut, Wouter L. J. Hinrichs, Anke Huckriede. (2010) Preservation of the Immunogenicity of Dry-powder Influenza H5N1 Whole Inactivated Virus Vaccine at Elevated Storage Temperatures. The AAPS Journal 12:2, 215-222
CrossRef24
Wei Lu, Paul A Tambyah. (2010) Safety and immunogenicity of influenza A H1N1 vaccines. Expert Review of Vaccines 9:4, 365-369
CrossRef25
Neetu Singh, Aseem Pandey, Suresh K. Mittal. (2010) Avian influenza pandemic preparedness: developing prepandemic and pandemic vaccines against a moving target. Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine 12,
CrossRef26
S. Koyama, T. Aoshi, T. Tanimoto, Y. Kumagai, K. Kobiyama, T. Tougan, K. Sakurai, C. Coban, T. Horii, S. Akira, K. J. Ishii. (2010) Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cells Delineate Immunogenicity of Influenza Vaccine Subtypes. Science Translational Medicine 2:25, 25ra24-25ra24
CrossRef27
Larry R. Smith, Mary K. Wloch, Ming Ye, Luane R. Reyes, Souphaphone Boutsaboualoy, Casey E. Dunne, Jennifer A. Chaplin, Denis Rusalov, Alain P. Rolland, Cindy L. Fisher, Mohamed S. Al-Ibrahim, Martin L. Kabongo, Roy Steigbigel, Robert B. Belshe, Ernest R. Kitt, Alice H. Chu, Ronald B. Moss. (2010) Phase 1 clinical trials of the safety and immunogenicity of adjuvanted plasmid DNA vaccines encoding influenza A virus H5 hemagglutinin. Vaccine 28:13, 2565-2572
CrossRef28
Michael J. Loeffelholz. (2010) Avian Influenza A H5N1 Virus. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 30:1, 1-20
CrossRef29
Cosue Miyaki, Wagner Quintilio, Eliane N. Miyaji, Viviane F. Botosso, Flavia S. Kubrusly, Fernanda L. Santos, Dmitri Iourtov, Hisako G. Higashi, Isaias Raw. (2010) Production of H5N1 (NIBRG-14) inactivated whole virus and split virion influenza vaccines and analysis of immunogenicity in mice using different adjuvant formulations. Vaccine 28:13, 2505-2509
CrossRef30
André van Maurik, Nicolas Sabarth, Helga Savidis Dacho, Peter Brühl, Michael Schwendinger, Brian A. Crowe, P. Noel Barrett, Otfried Kistner, M. Keith Howard. (2010) Seasonal influenza vaccine elicits heterosubtypic immunity against H5N1 that can be further boosted by H5N1 vaccination. Vaccine 28:7, 1778-1785
CrossRef31
Daisuke Ikeno, Kazuhiko Kimachi, Yoichiro Kino, Seiichi Harada, Kayo Yoshida, Shinji Tochihara, Shigeyuki Itamura, Takato Odagiri, Masato Tashiro, Kenji Okada, Chiaki Miyazaki, Kohji Ueda. (2010) Immunogenicity of an inactivated adjuvanted whole-virion influenza A (H5N1, NIBRG-14) vaccine administered by intramuscular or subcutaneous injection. Microbiology and Immunology 54:2, 81-88
CrossRef32
Suryaprakash Sambhara, Gregory A. Poland. (2010) H5N1 Avian Influenza: Preventive and Therapeutic Strategies Against a Pandemic. Annual Review of Medicine 61:1, 187-198
CrossRef33
Xiao-Feng Liang, Hua-Qing Wang, Jun-Zhi Wang, Han-Hua Fang, Jiang Wu, Feng-Cai Zhu, Rong-Cheng Li, Sheng-Li Xia, Yu-Liang Zhao, Fang-Jun Li, Shao-Hong Yan, Wei-Dong Yin, Kang An, Duo-Jia Feng, Xuan-Lin Cui, Feng-Chun Qi, Chang-Jun Ju, Yu-Hui Zhang, Zhi-Jun Guo, Ping-Yu Chen, Ze Chen, Kun-Ming Yan, Yu Wang. (2010) Safety and immunogenicity of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 vaccines in China: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 375:9708, 56-66
CrossRef34
Maria R. Farcet, Christina B. Planitzer, Oliver Stein, Jens Modrof, Thomas R. Kreil. (2010) Hepatitis A virus antibodies in immunoglobulin preparations. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 125:1, 198-202
CrossRef35
Nicolas Sabarth, M. Keith Howard, Helga Savidis-Dacho, André van Maurik, P. Noel Barrett, Otfried Kistner. (2010) Comparison of single, homologous prime-boost and heterologous prime-boost immunization strategies against H5N1 influenza virus in a mouse challenge model. Vaccine 28:3, 650-656
CrossRef36
Zoltan Vajo, Ferenc Tamas, Laszlo Sinka, Istvan Jankovics. (2010) Safety and immunogenicity of a 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 vaccine when administered alone or simultaneously with the seasonal influenza vaccine for the 2009–10 influenza season: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 375:9708, 49-55
CrossRef37
José M. Bayas Rodríguez, Alberto L. García-Basteiro, Guillermo Mena Pinilla. (2010) Problemática de la vacunación contra la gripe A en España. Archivos de Bronconeumología 46, 32-38
CrossRef38
Wendy Keitel, Nicola Groth, Maria Lattanzi, Michaela Praus, Anne Katrin Hilbert, Astrid Borkowski, Ted F. Tsai. (2010) Dose ranging of adjuvant and antigen in a cell culture H5N1 influenza vaccine: Safety and immunogenicity of a phase 1/2 clinical trial. Vaccine 28:3, 840-848
CrossRef39
Arash Hassantoufighi, Henry Zhang, Matthew Sandbulte, Jin Gao, Jody Manischewitz, Lisa King, Hana Golding, Timothy M. Straight, Maryna C. Eichelberger. (2010) A practical influenza neutralization assay to simultaneously quantify hemagglutinin and neuraminidase-inhibiting antibody responses. Vaccine 28:3, 790-797
CrossRef40
Zhu, Feng-Cai, Wang, Hua, Fang, Han-Hua, Yang, Jian Guo, Lin, Xiao Jun, Liang, Xiao-Feng, Zhang, Xue-Feng, Pan, Hong-Xing, Meng, Fan-Yue, Hu, Yue Mei, Liu, Wen-Dong, Li, Chang-Gui, Li, Wei, Zhang, Xiang, Hu, Jin Mei, Peng, Wei Bing, Yang, Bao Ping, Xi, Pei, Wang, Hua-Qing, Zheng, Jing-Shan, . (2009) A Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Various Age Groups. New England Journal of Medicine 361:25, 2414-2423
Full Text41
Karl G. Nicholson, Catherine I. Thompson, Jaco M. Klap, John M. Wood, Sally Batham, Robert W. Newman, Robert Mischler, Maria C. Zambon, Iain Stephenson. (2009) Safety and immunogenicity of whole-virus, alum-adjuvanted whole-virus, virosomal, and whole-virus intradermal influenza A/H9N2 vaccine formulations. Vaccine 28:1, 171-178
CrossRef42
Shan Lu, Shixia Wang. (2009) Technical transformation of biodefense vaccines. Vaccine 27, D8-D15
CrossRef43
Markus Müller. (2009) Zur Medienberichterstattung über den in Österreich verfügbaren Impfstoff gegen pandemische Influenza A/H1N1. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 121:21-22, 663-664
CrossRef44
Wendy A. Keitel, Cornelia L. Dekker, ChrisAnna Mink, James D. Campbell, Kathryn M. Edwards, Shital M. Patel, Dora Y. Ho, Helen K. Talbot, Kuo Guo, Diana L. Noah, Heather Hill. (2009) Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated, Vero cell culture-derived whole virus influenza A/H5N1 vaccine given alone or with aluminum hydroxide adjuvant in healthy adults. Vaccine 27:47, 6642-6648
CrossRef45
R. Rappuoli, G. Del Giudice, G. J. Nabel, A. D. M. E. Osterhaus, R. Robinson, D. Salisbury, K. Stohr, J. J. Treanor. (2009) Rethinking Influenza. Science 326:5949, 50-50
CrossRef46
Tino F. Schwarz, Thomas Horacek, Markus Knuf, Hanns-Gerd Damman, François Roman, Mamadou Dramé, Paul Gillard, Wolfgang Jilg. (2009) Single dose vaccination with AS03-adjuvanted H5N1 vaccines in a randomized trial induces strong and broad immune responsiveness to booster vaccination in adults. Vaccine 27:45, 6284-6290
CrossRef47
Liisa Lehtoranta, Anja Villberg, Riitta Santanen, Thedi Ziegler. (2009) A novel, colorimetric neutralization assay for measuring antibodies to influenza viruses. Journal of Virological Methods 159:2, 271-276
CrossRef48
Ruth A. Karron, Kawsar Talaat, Catherine Luke, Karen Callahan, Bhagvanji Thumar, Susan DiLorenzo, Josephine McAuliffe, Elizabeth Schappell, Amorsolo Suguitan, Kimberly Mills, Grace Chen, Elaine Lamirande, Kathleen Coelingh, Hong Jin, Brian R. Murphy, George Kemble, Kanta Subbarao. (2009) Evaluation of two live attenuated cold-adapted H5N1 influenza virus vaccines in healthy adults. Vaccine 27:36, 4953-4960
CrossRef49
Lamberto Manzoli, Georgia Salanti, Corrado De Vito, Antonio Boccia, John PA Ioannidis, Paolo Villari. (2009) Immunogenicity and adverse events of avian influenza A H5N1 vaccine in healthy adults: multiple-treatments meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 9:8, 482-492
CrossRef50
Tristan Clark, Iain Stephenson. (2009) Influenza A/H1N1 in 2009: a pandemic in evolution. Expert Review of Vaccines 8:7, 819-822
CrossRef51
Luc Hessel, . (2009) Pandemic influenza vaccines: meeting the supply, distribution and deployment challenges. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 3:4, 165-170
CrossRef52
Alexander Doroshenko, Scott A Halperin. (2009) Trivalent MDCK cell culture-derived influenza vaccine Optaflu ® (Novartis Vaccines). Expert Review of Vaccines 8:6, 679-688
CrossRef53
Rebecca J. Cox, Diane Major, Solveig Hauge, Abdullah S. Madhun, Karl A. Brokstad, Mirjam Kuhne, Jon Smith, Frederick R. Vogel, Maria Zambon, Lars R. Haaheim, John Wood. (2009) A cell-based H7N1 split influenza virion vaccine confers protection in mouse and ferret challenge models. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 3:3, 107-117
CrossRef54
P Noel Barrett, Wolfgang Mundt, Otfried Kistner, M Keith Howard. (2009) Vero cell platform in vaccine production: moving towards cell culture-based viral vaccines. Expert Review of Vaccines 8:5, 607-618
CrossRef55
Zoltan Vajo. (2009) Influenza A (H5N1) pandemic prototype vaccine Fluval ®. Expert Review of Vaccines 8:5, 619-624
CrossRef56
Bram Palache, Ryoko Krause. (2009) Progress with human H5N1 vaccines: a perspective from industry. Expert Review of Vaccines 8:4, 391-400
CrossRef57
Jessica A Chichester, Lars R Haaheim, Vidadi Yusibov. (2009) Using plant cells as influenza vaccine substrates. Expert Review of Vaccines 8:4, 493-498
CrossRef58
Isabel Leroux-Roels, Geert Leroux-Roels. (2009) Current status and progress of prepandemic and pandemic influenza vaccine development. Expert Review of Vaccines 8:4, 401-423
CrossRef59
Arnold S Monto, Suzanne E Ohmit. (2009) Seasonal influenza vaccines: evolutions and future trends. Expert Review of Vaccines 8:4, 383-389
CrossRef60
Rebecca J. Cox, Abdullah S. Madhun, Solveig Hauge, Haakon Sjursen, Diane Major, Mirjam Kuhne, Katja Höschler, Melanie Saville, Frederick R. Vogel, Wendy Barclay, Isabella Donatelli, Maria Zambon, John Wood, Lars R. Haaheim. (2009) A phase I clinical trial of a PER.C6® cell grown influenza H7 virus vaccine. Vaccine 27:13, 1889-1897
CrossRef61
Arnt-Ove Hovden, Karl A. Brokstad, Diane Major, John Wood, Lars R. Haaheim, Rebecca J. Cox. (2009) A pilot study of the immune response to whole inactivated avian influenza H7N1 virus vaccine in mice. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 3:1, 21-28
CrossRef62
Mary Elizabeth Wilson. (2008) Preface. Medical Clinics of North America 92:6, xiii-xviii
CrossRef63
Julian W. Tang, Karry L.K. Ngai, Paul K.S. Chan. (2008) Lack of cross-immune reactivity against influenza H5N1 from seasonal influenza vaccine in humans. Journal of Medical Virology 80:11, 1992-1996
CrossRef64
Mary Hoelscher, Shivaprakash Gangappa, Weimin Zhong, Lakshmi Jayashankar, Suryaprakash Sambhara. (2008) Vaccines against epidemic and pandemic influenza. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery 5:10, 1139-1157
CrossRef65
(2008) News in brief. Nature Medicine 14:7, 702-703
CrossRef66
Wright, Peter F., . (2008) Vaccine Preparedness — Are We Ready for the Next Influenza Pandemic?. New England Journal of Medicine 358:24, 2540-2543
Full Text
