Cited by 51Influenza Virus Research StudiesImmune responses and vaccinationsBacterial Infections and Vaccines

Vaccination in the elderly

Open access
Derhovanessian, Evelyna, Pawelec, Graham·2012·Microbial Biotechnology

Abstract

There is a general consensus that the elderly do not respond as well to vaccination as the young, but robust studies are few and far between. Most refer to influenza vaccination, but even here, adequate immunological and clinical data are surprisingly thin on the ground. The meta-analysis by Goodwin et al. from 2006 is still the most comprehensive that we have. They reviewed 31 antibody response studies comparing influenza vaccination efficacy in groups of elderly and younger adults. They reported that the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of responses in elderly versus young adults ranged from 0.24 to 0.59 for the three influenza antigens used in the vaccines. They concluded that rather than the estimated 70-90% clinical vaccine efficacy in younger adults, this figure was only 17-53% in the elderly, depending on which viruses were prevalent that year. They stated that 'this highlights the need for more immunogenic vaccine formulations for the elderly'. How to achieve this? There are three areas where we may consider alterations to increase vaccine efficacy: (i) make the vaccine more potent; (ii) use adjuvants to enhance immunity; and (iii) apply immune modulators or other interventions to alter host immunity generally. We will consider these three options, focusing on influenza vaccination, in this mini-review.

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 · 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2011.00283.x

Cites

58 of 58 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Derhovanessian, E., & Pawelec, G.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Derhovanessian, Evelyna
  • Pawelec, Graham
Venue
Microbial Biotechnology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08-31
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
226-232
ISSN
1751-7915 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1536279718
Cited by
51
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microbial Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
Keywords
influenza vaccination, vaccine immunogenicity, antibody response, vaccine efficacy, adjuvants, immunomodulators, older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Humans, Immunologic Factors, Vaccination, Vaccines

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