Cited by 254Influenza Virus Research StudiesIntramuscular injections and effectsBacterial Infections and Vaccines

Intradermal Influenza Vaccine Administered Using a New Microinjection System Produces Superior Immunogenicity in Elderly Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Holland, David, Booy, Robert, Looze, Ferdinandus De, Eizenberg, Peter, McDonald, James, Karrasch, Jeff, McKeirnan, Maureen, Salem, Hatem +4 more·2008·The Journal of Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Enhanced influenza vaccines are needed to provide improved protection for elderly individuals. The intradermal vaccination route was hypothesized to provide immunogenicity superior to that provided by the intramuscular vaccination route. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized study, 1107 volunteers >60 years of age received intradermal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine containing 15 or 21 microg of hemagglutinin per strain or intramuscular control vaccine. Intradermal vaccines used a novel microinjection system designed to ensure easy, convenient, consistent vaccination. The primary end points of the study were the strain-specific hemagglutination inhibition geometric mean titers (GMTs) noted 21 days after vaccination. Groups were compared using noninferiority and superiority analyses. RESULTS: For each strain, the GMTs noted in association with each intradermal vaccine were superior to those noted with the intramuscular control (adjusted P< .0001). Seroprotection rates, seroconversion rates, and mean titer increases were also superior for intradermally administered vaccine in all but one of the analyses undertaken. Systemic reactogenicity was comparable between routes. Local injection site reactions, particularly erythema but not pain, were more commonly associated with intradermal vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, the intradermal vaccination route has been used to elicit immune responses significantly superior to those noted in association with the conventional intramuscular vaccination route. This was done using an easy-to-use, reliable microinjection system. This superior response is expected to enhance annual protection against influenza in this vulnerable population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registry number: NCT00296829.

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 · 10.1086/590434

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All novel influenza vaccine formulations (intradermal, high-dose, MF59-adjuvanted) show slightly higher immunogenicity in the elderly compared to the standard trivalent inactivated vaccine.

    “All of the above formulations show slightly higher immunogenicity in the elderly compared to the standard trivalent inactivated vaccine.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [33]33. Palache AM. Influenza vaccines: a reappraisal of their use. Drugs 1997 ; 54:841-56.
  2. [37]37. Brooks JH, Criep LH, Ruben FL. Intradermal administration of bivalent and monovalent influenza vaccines. Ann Allergy 1977 ; 39:110-2.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holland, D., Booy, R., Looze, F. D., Eizenberg, P., McDonald, J., Karrasch, J., McKeirnan, M., Salem, H., Mills, G., Reid, J., Weber, F., & Saville, M.
Affiliations
  • Middlemore Hospital (NZ)
  • Children's Hospital at Westmead (AU)
  • Research Centre Imarat (IN)
  • Peninsula Health (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Waikato Hospital (NZ)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Sanofi (France) (FR)
Corresponding author
Holland, David
Venue
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Published
2008-09
Volume
198
Issue
5
Pages
650-658
ISSN
  • 0022-1899 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6613
OpenAlex
W1977526385
Cited by
254
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 22
FWCI
23.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Intramuscular injections and effects
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
Keywords
intradermal vaccination, influenza vaccination, immunogenicity, older adults, intramuscular vaccine, hemagglutination inhibition, seroprotection, vaccine route comparison, injection site reactions, reactogenicity
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Dose-Response Relationship, Immunologic, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Influenza, Human, Influenza Vaccines, Injections, Intradermal, Male, Microinjections, Middle Aged, Vaccines, Inactivated

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