Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dose Sparing with Intradermal Injection of Influenza Vaccine

Kenney, Richard T., Frech, Sarah A., Muenz, Larry R., Villar, Christina P., Glenn, Gregory M.·2004·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The loss of half the U.S. supply of influenza vaccine due to contamination has created a critical shortage. Dose-sparing strategies that use intradermal delivery of vaccines may be one approach to consider. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label trial outside the influenza season in 100 healthy adults 18 to 40 years of age to compare the immunogenicity and safety of intradermal immunization with influenza vaccine with standard intramuscular immunization. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either a single intramuscular dose of 0.5 ml of trivalent influenza vaccine, containing at least 15 microg of hemagglutinin per strain, by means of a prefilled syringe or a single intradermal dose of 0.1 ml, containing at least 3 microg of hemagglutinin per strain, by means of a fine-gauge needle; both injections were in the deltoid region. Changes in the hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) antibody titer were assessed by comparing geometric mean titers and fold increases relative to baseline values and by comparing changes in the seroconversion and seroprotection rates. Local and systemic adverse events were assessed after both types of vaccination. RESULTS: Subjects who received an intradermal injection with one fifth the standard dose of influenza vaccine had increases in the geometric mean HAI titer by a factor of 15.2 for the H1N1 strain in the vaccine, 19.0 for the H3N2 strain, and 12.4 for the B strain on day 21, as compared with respective increases by a factor of 14.9, 7.1, and 15.3 for the intramuscular injection of the standard dose. Seroconversion and seroprotection rates were similar in the two groups on day 21, ranging from 66 to 82 percent and 84 to 100 percent, respectively. Local reactions were significantly more frequent among recipients of intradermal injections than among recipients of intramuscular injections, but such reactions were mild and transient. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of young adults, intradermal administration of one fifth the standard intramuscular dose of an influenza vaccine elicited immunogenicity that was similar to or better than that elicited by intramuscular injection. Intradermal administration could be used to expand the supplies of influenza vaccine, but further studies are needed before this strategy can be recommended for routine use.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa043540

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Kenney, R. T., Frech, S. A., Muenz, L. R., Villar, C. P., & Glenn, G. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2004-11-25
Volume
351
Issue
22
Pages
2295-2301
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2090889765
Cited by
422
References
0
FWCI
14.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dose Sparing with Intradermal Injection of Influenza Vaccine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa043540
The paper
Kenney, R. T., Frech, S. A., Muenz, L. R., Villar, C. P., & Glenn, G. M. (2004). Dose Sparing with Intradermal Injection of Influenza Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa043540

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.