AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 69, Issue 12 1247-1251, Copyright © 1979 by American Public Health Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Halperin, W
Right arrow Articles by Goldfield, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Halperin, W
Right arrow Articles by Goldfield, M
A comparison of the intradermal and subcutaneous routes of influenza vaccination with A/New Jersey/76 (swine flu) and A/Victoria/75: report of a study and review of the literature.

W Halperin, W I Weiss, R Altman, M A Diamond, K J Black, A W Iaci, H C Black and M Goldfield

A trail of influenza vaccination, with use of bivalent split virus vaccine (A/New Jersey/76 and A/Victoria/75), was conducted to compare the immunogenicity and reactions when vaccine was given by the subcutaneous and intradermal routes. Volunteers 18 to 24 years old were randomized into equal groups, one group receiving 0.1 ml of vaccine intradermally and the other receiving 0.5 ml subcutaneously. For the A/Victoria vaccine, the immunogenicity of the intradermal route seemed superior; for A/New Jersey vaccine, the routes were equivalent. Adverse reactions were minimal and equivalent for both groups. In times of vaccine shortage, the intradermal route is considered to stretch vaccine supplies. Field trials of new influenza vaccines should include evaluation of the immunogenicity of and adverse reactions caused by the same vaccine given by different routes in varied dosages.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.Home page
S. M. JOHNSON, K. M. KEREKES, J. M. LUNETTA, and D. PAPPAGIANIS
Characteristics of the Protective Subcellular Coccidioidal T27K Vaccine
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., September 1, 2007; 1111(1): 275 - 289.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CVIHome page
J. B. Alarcon, A. W. Hartley, N. G. Harvey, and J. A. Mikszta
Preclinical Evaluation of Microneedle Technology for Intradermal Delivery of Influenza Vaccines
Clin. Vaccine Immunol., April 1, 2007; 14(4): 375 - 381.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
R. T. Kenney, S. A. Frech, L. R. Muenz, C. P. Villar, and G. M. Glenn
Dose Sparing with Intradermal Injection of Influenza Vaccine
N. Engl. J. Med., November 25, 2004; 351(22): 2295 - 2301.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1979 by the American Public Health Association