Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T04:20:42.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of monovalent Hong Kong influenza virus vaccine with vaccines containing only pre-1968 Asian strains in adult volunteers: A report to the Medical Research Council Committee on Influenza and other Respiratory Virus Vaccines*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. Hobson ,
F. A. Baker ,
C. P. Chivers ,
Sylvia E. Reed  and
D. Sharp
D. Hobson
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Liverpool
F. A. Baker
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Liverpool
C. P. Chivers
Affiliation:
Medical Department, Mond Division, I.C.I. Ltd., Northwich, Cheshire
Sylvia E. Reed
Affiliation:
M.R.C. Common Cold Research Unit, Salisbury
D. Sharp
Affiliation:
M.R.C. Common Cold Research Unit, Salisbury
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A total of 1601 adult industrial workers were vaccinated with either monovalent inactivated vaccine of the Hong Kong strain of influenza A virus, or with polyvalent vaccine containing only pre-1968 Asian viruses. Serological investigations on a random sample of volunteers showed that 53/56 (95 %) given Hong Kong vaccine developed a significant rise in specific haemagglutination-inhibiting antibody; final titres were 1/48 or greater in 39 (70%) and the GMT (geometric mean titre) was 96·5. After polyvalent Asian vaccine, 40/67 (60%) also produced antibody against Hong Kong virus, but only 21 (31 %) had final titres of 1/48 or above, and the GMT rose only to 14·1. An intranasal spray of the Hong Kong vaccine in addition to injected Asian vaccine gave no additional increase in antibody.

Each type of vaccine stimulated a recall of pre-existing antibody against Asian viruses. The possible significance of heterologous responses to the two vaccines is discussed.

The incidence of clinical influenza in the trial population was sporadic, and the infection rates were too low to allow any accurate estimate of the protective efficiency of the two vaccines.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , September 1970 , pp. 369 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

References

REFERENCES

Coleman, M. T., Dowdle, W. R., Pereira, H. G., Schild, G. C. & Chang, W. K. (1968). The Hong Kong/68 Influenza A 2 variant. Lancet ii, 1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, D. (1967). Immunization against respiratory virus infections. In Modern Trends in Immunology, 2nd ed. Ed. Cruickshank, R. and Weir, D. M.. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Schulman, J. L., Khakpour, M. & Kilbourne, E. D. (1968). The protective effect of specific immunity to viral neuraminidase on influenza virus infections of mice. Journal of Virology 2, 778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuart-Harris, C. H. (1965). Influenza and Other Virus Infections of the Respiratory Tract, 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Waldman, R. H., Kasel, J. A., Fulk, R. V., Togo, Y., Hornick, R. B., Heiner, G. G., Dawkins, A. T. Jr. & Mann, J. J. (1968). Influenza antibody in human respiratory secretions after subcutaneous or respiratory immunization with inactivated virus. Nature, London 218, 594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (1953). Expert Committee on Influenza. World Health Organization. Technical Report Series, no. 64.Google Scholar