The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine in Adults 50 Years of Age or Older
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improved influenza vaccines are needed to control seasonal epidemics. This trial compared the protective efficacy in older adults of a quadrivalent, recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) with a standard-dose, egg-grown, quadrivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) during the A/H3N2-predominant 2014-2015 influenza season, when antigenic mismatch between circulating and vaccine influenza strains resulted in the reduced effectiveness of many licensed vaccines. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial of RIV4 (45 μg of recombinant hemagglutinin [HA] per strain, 180 μg of protein per dose) versus standard-dose IIV4 (15 μg of HA per strain, 60 μg of protein per dose) to compare the relative vaccine efficacy against reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed, protocol-defined, influenza-like illness caused by any influenza strain starting 14 days or more after vaccination in adults who were 50 years of age or older. The diagnosis of influenza infection was confirmed by means of RT-PCR assay and culture of nasopharyngeal swabs obtained from participants with symptoms of an influenza-like illness. The primary end point was RT-PCR-confirmed, protocol defined, influenza-like illness between 14 days or more after vaccination and the end of the influenza season. RESULTS: A total of 9003 participants were enrolled and underwent randomization; 8855 (98.4%) received a trial vaccine and underwent an efficacy follow-up (the modified intention-to-treat population), and 8604 (95.6%) completed the per-protocol follow-up (the modified per-protocol population). Among RIV4 recipients, the RT-PCR-confirmed influenza attack rate was 2.2% (96 cases among 4303 participants) in the modified per-protocol population and 2.2% (96 cases among 4427 participants) in the modified intention-to-treat population. Among IIV4 recipients, the attack rate was 3.2% (138 cases among 4301 participants) in the modified per-protocol population and 3.1% (138 cases among 4428 participants) in the modified intention-to-treat population. A total of 181 cases of influenza A/H3N2, 47 cases of influenza B, and 6 cases of nonsubtypeable influenza A were detected. The probability of influenza-like illness was 30% lower with RIV4 than with IIV4 (95% confidence interval, 10 to 47; P=0.006) and satisfied prespecified criteria for the primary noninferiority analysis and an exploratory superiority analysis of RIV4 over IIV4. The safety profiles of the vaccines were similar. CONCLUSIONS: RIV4 provided better protection than standard-dose IIV4 against confirmed influenza-like illness among older adults. (Funded by Protein Sciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02285998 .).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Statistics in Medicine — Reporting of Subgroup Analyses in Clinical Trials
Wang, R., Lagakos, S. W., Ware, J. H., Hunter, D. J., & Drazen, J. M. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsr077003 · Cited by 1,445
Efficacy of High-Dose versus Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults
DiazGranados, C. A., Dunning, A. J., Kimmel, M., Kirby, D., Treanor, J., Collins, A., Pollak, R., Christoff, J., Earl, J., Landolfi, V., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1315727 · Cited by 876
Skowronski, D. M., Janjua, N. Z., De Serres, G., Sabaiduc, S., Eshaghi, A., Dickinson, J. A., Fonseca, K., Winter, A.-L., Gubbay, J. B., Krajden, M., et al. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092153 · Cited by 416
Cited by
Grohskopf, L. A., Sokolow, L. Z., Broder, K. R., Walter, E. B., Fry, A. M., & Jernigan, D. B. (2018) · MMWR. Recommendations and Reports · doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6703a1 · Cited by 1,632
Zost, S. J., Parkhouse, K., Gumina, M. E., Kim, K., Diaz Perez, S., Wilson, P. C., Treanor, J. J., Sant, A. J., Cobey, S., & Hensley, S. E. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1712377114 · Cited by 563
Influenza Virus: Dealing with a Drifting and Shifting Pathogen
Kim, H., Webster, R. G., & Webby, R. J. (2018) · Viral Immunology · doi:10.1089/vim.2017.0141 · Cited by 419
Grohskopf, L. A., Alyanak, E., Broder, K. R., Blanton, L. H., Fry, A. M., Jernigan, D. B., & Atmar, R. L. (2020) · MMWR. Recommendations and Reports · doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6908a1 · Cited by 332
Grohskopf, L. A., Sokolow, L. Z., Broder, K. R., Walter, E. B., Bresee, J. S., Fry, A. M., & Jernigan, D. B. (2017) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.14511 · Cited by 327
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunkle, L. M., Izikson, R., Patriarca, P., Goldenthal, K. L., Muse, D., Callahan, J., & Cox, M. M. J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2017-06-22
- Volume
- 376
- Issue
- 25
- Pages
- 2427-2436
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2703965028
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 18.92
- 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: Efficacy of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine in Adults 50 Years of Age or Older. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1608862
- The paper
- Dunkle, L. M., Izikson, R., Patriarca, P., Goldenthal, K. L., Muse, D., Callahan, J., & Cox, M. M. J. (2017). Efficacy of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine in Adults 50 Years of Age or Older. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1608862
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.