American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 93, No. 6: 480-486
Copyright © 1971 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
other |
A COMPARISON OF SUBCUTANEOUS, NASAL, AND COMBINED INFLUENZA VACCINATION. II. PROTECTION AGAINST NATURAL CHALLENGE1,2
3USPHS, CDC, assigned to Virginia State Health Department, Richmond; currently in Agana, Guam
4Virginia State Health Department, Richmond; currently PHS Field Officer, Central America Malaria Research Station, El Salvador
5Recipient of Research Career Development Award, No. 1 KO4 AI 2051
Reprint requests to Dr. Gwaltney, Department of Internal Medicine University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville Virginia, 22901.
Edmondson, W. P., Jr., R. Rothenberg, P. W. White and J. M. Gwaltney, Jr. (Univ. of Virginia School of. Medicine, Charlottesville, Va. 22901). A comparison of subcutaneous, nasal, and combined influenza vaccination. II. Protection against natural challenge. Amer J Epidem 93: 480–486, 1971.—Monovalent killed influenza A2 Hong Kong vaccine in doses (400 CCA units) recommended for civilian use was given to insurance company employees and elderly psychiatric patients by injection, nasal spray, or a combination of both methods. Vaccinees and controls were then studied for evidence of immunity to influenza during the 1968–1969 epidemic Parenteral vaccination was well tolerated and effective in reducing influenza infection and illness rates in both groups. Vaccine had no effect on total respiratory illness in the insurance group, although total absenteeism was lowered because of the greater effect of influenza over that of colds in causing time lost from work. Vaccine given by spray into the respiratory tract was ineffective. The addition of spray to parenteral vaccination provided no additional advantage over parenteral vaccination alone.
absenteeism, industrial; influenza; influenza vaccine; respiratory disease, acute; vaccination, nasal
1From the Departments of Preventive Medicine and Internal Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the Virginia State Department of Health Laboratories, Richmond, Va.
2This investigation was sponsored in part by Contrast No. PH 43–63–1128, Vaccine Development Branch, NIAID, NIH, and in part by Training Grant No. AI 00266, Bacteriology and Mycology Branch, NIAID, NIH.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. L. Nichol, P. M. Mendelman, K. P. Mallon, L. A. Jackson, G. J. Gorse, R. B. Belshe, W. P. Glezen, J. Wittes, and for the Live Attenuated Influenza Virus Vaccine in Effectiveness of Live, Attenuated Intranasal Influenza Virus Vaccine in Healthy, Working Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA, July 14, 1999; 282(2): 137 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. L. Nichol, A. Lind, K. L. Margolis, M. Murdoch, R. McFadden, M. Hauge, S. Magnan, and M. Drake The Effectiveness of Vaccination against Influenza in Healthy, Working Adults N. Engl. J. Med., October 5, 1995; 333(14): 889 - 893. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K.L. Nichol, K.L. Margolis, J. Wuorenma, and T. Von Sternberg The Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Vaccination against Influenza among Elderly Persons Living in the Community N. Engl. J. Med., September 22, 1994; 331(12): 778 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Fedson, A. Wajda, J. P. Nicol, G. W. Hammond, D. L. Kaiser, and L. L. Roos Clinical Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccination in Manitoba JAMA, October 27, 1993; 270(16): 1956 - 1961. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Wenzel, J. O. Hendley, M. A. Sande, and J. M. Gwaltney Jr. Revised (1972-1973) Bivalent Influenza Vaccine: Serum and Nasal Antibody Responses to Parenteral Vaccination JAMA, October 22, 1973; 226(4): 435 - 438. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. L. Ruben, L. W. Akers, E. D. Stanley, and G. G. Jackson Protection With Split and Whole Virus Vaccines Against Influenza Arch Intern Med, October 1, 1973; 132(4): 568 - 571. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|