• Oriol Manuel, Atul Humar, Carine Berutto, Leticia Ely, Stefano Giulieri, Dale Lien, Pascal R Meylan, Justin Weinkauf, Manuel Pascual, Roland Nador, John-David Aubert, and Deepali Kumar.
• Infectious Diseases Service, University Hospital Center (CHUV) and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. oriol.manuel@chuv.ch
• J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2011 Jun 1;30(6):679-84.

BackgroundIn this study we compared the immunogenicity of influenza vaccine administered intradermally to the standard intramuscular vaccination in lung transplant recipients.MethodsPatients were randomized to receive the trivalent inactivated seasonal 2008-9 influenza vaccine containing either 6 μg (intradermal) or 15 μg (intramuscular) of hemagglutinin per viral strain. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of geometric mean titer of antibodies using the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay. Vaccine response was defined as a 4-fold or higher increase of antibody titers to at least one vaccine antigen.ResultsEighty-five patients received either the intradermal (n = 41) or intramuscular (n = 44) vaccine. Vaccine response was seen in 6 of 41 patients (14.6%) in the intradermal vs 8 of 43 (18.6%) in the intramuscular group (p = 0.77). Seroprotection (HI ≥ 1:32) was 39% for H1N1, 83% for H3N2 and 29% for B strain in the intradermal group vs 28% for H1N1, 98% for H3N2 and 58% for B strain in the intramuscular group (p = 0.36 for H1N1, p = 0.02 for H3N2, p < 0.01 for B). Mild adverse events were seen in 44% of patients in the intradermal group and 34% in the intramuscular group (p = 0.38).ConclusionsImmunogenicity of the 2008-9 influenza vaccine given intradermally or intramuscularly was overall poor in lung transplant recipients. Novel strategies for influenza vaccination in this population are needed.Copyright © 2011 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

31 keywords...

hide…