On, severe influenza infection has occurred after Methionine enkephalin web vaccination and doubts about vaccine effectiveness have been reported [28]. To our knowledge this is the first study to evaluate the immunogenicity, and perceived tolerance of the pandemic 2009 (H1N1) influenza A vaccine in a well defined cohort of CHC patients. Our findings are useful from the opportunistic point of view, taking into account the naive condition of our population to this novel virus strain, which reduces cross-reactive antibodies that may complicate the interpretation of the immunogenic response.Thus, our results may be relevant for any future pandemic caused by a similar virus. A limitation of our study is the sample size which does not allow us to draw conclusions on vaccine efficacy or effectiveness based on percentage reduction of attack rates (number of new cases during the exposure period divided by the number of people in the population who could 1326631 catch the disease). On the other hand, clinical attack rate was lower than that predicted by the authorities (20?0 estimated by mathematical modeling conducted in the southern hemisphere), and available data clearly indicate that the clinical protection provided by influenza vaccines is closely correlated with their immunogenicity [29]. Consequently, for influenza vaccines it is generally accepted that vaccine induced HI antibody titers, measured against influenza antigens from strains causing disease in the community, are a good surrogate marker of efficacy. In this regard, our CHC patients showed optimal response to influenza vaccine. In fact, immunologic endpointsTable 5. Systemic adverse events within 21 days after vaccination in group of patients.CHC with ongoing treatment (n = 14) Fever yes, n ( ) Malaise yes, n ( ) Nausea/Vomiting yes, n ( ) Diarrhea yes, n ( ) Headache yes, n ( ) Myalgia/Arthralgia yes, n ( ) Irritability yes, n ( ) Somnolence yes, n ( ) 1 (7) 2 (14) 0 (0) 1 (7) 1 (7) 2 (14) 1 (7) 3 (21)CHC without treatment (n = 9) 0 (0) 1 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)IBD patients (n = 24) 0 (0) 2 (8) 1 (4) 2 (8) 1 (4) 3 (12) 3 (12) 1 (4)P value0.30 0.23 0.61 0.67 0.68 0.50 0.50 0.CHC, chronic hepatitis C; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease. One patient in each CHC group and 8 IBD patients did not complete the questionnaire. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048610.tInfluenza A Vaccine in Chronic Hepatitis CTable 6. Characteristics and type of response in group of patients with CHC after hepatitis C virus treatment.CHC with ongoing treatment (n = 15) Peg-interferon a-2a, n ( ) Dose of Peg-interferon (mcg) Dose of ribavirin (mg) SVR, n ( ) Viral load (IU) AST (IU) ALT (IU) Forns fibrosis indexy APRI FIB-4 12 (80) 113641 9606155 7/15 (46.7) 57879761255219 33621 35634 5.3661.5 0.7560.37 1.8260.CHC treated after vaccination (n = 8) 4 (50) 144638 10006185 5/8 (62.5) JSI-124 chemical information 1281526282710 34619 36628 5.4161.8 0.9560.40 2.9662.P value0.13 0.09 0.58 0.67 0.59 0.63 0.72 0.89 0.16 0.CHC, chronic hepatitis C; SVR, sustained virological response; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; APRI, AST to platelet ratio index. Mean 6 standard deviation. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048610.testablished for seasonal influenza vaccines (proportions of seroprotection .70 , seroconversion .40 and GMTR of HI antibody titers .2.5) were largely achieved [30]. Although the size of the cohorts included in the study does not allow firm conclusions, the incidence of respiratory infections due to influenza A infection in our vacc.On, severe influenza infection has occurred after vaccination and doubts about vaccine effectiveness have been reported [28]. To our knowledge this is the first study to evaluate the immunogenicity, and perceived tolerance of the pandemic 2009 (H1N1) influenza A vaccine in a well defined cohort of CHC patients. Our findings are useful from the opportunistic point of view, taking into account the naive condition of our population to this novel virus strain, which reduces cross-reactive antibodies that may complicate the interpretation of the immunogenic response.Thus, our results may be relevant for any future pandemic caused by a similar virus. A limitation of our study is the sample size which does not allow us to draw conclusions on vaccine efficacy or effectiveness based on percentage reduction of attack rates (number of new cases during the exposure period divided by the number of people in the population who could 1326631 catch the disease). On the other hand, clinical attack rate was lower than that predicted by the authorities (20?0 estimated by mathematical modeling conducted in the southern hemisphere), and available data clearly indicate that the clinical protection provided by influenza vaccines is closely correlated with their immunogenicity [29]. Consequently, for influenza vaccines it is generally accepted that vaccine induced HI antibody titers, measured against influenza antigens from strains causing disease in the community, are a good surrogate marker of efficacy. In this regard, our CHC patients showed optimal response to influenza vaccine. In fact, immunologic endpointsTable 5. Systemic adverse events within 21 days after vaccination in group of patients.CHC with ongoing treatment (n = 14) Fever yes, n ( ) Malaise yes, n ( ) Nausea/Vomiting yes, n ( ) Diarrhea yes, n ( ) Headache yes, n ( ) Myalgia/Arthralgia yes, n ( ) Irritability yes, n ( ) Somnolence yes, n ( ) 1 (7) 2 (14) 0 (0) 1 (7) 1 (7) 2 (14) 1 (7) 3 (21)CHC without treatment (n = 9) 0 (0) 1 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)IBD patients (n = 24) 0 (0) 2 (8) 1 (4) 2 (8) 1 (4) 3 (12) 3 (12) 1 (4)P value0.30 0.23 0.61 0.67 0.68 0.50 0.50 0.CHC, chronic hepatitis C; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease. One patient in each CHC group and 8 IBD patients did not complete the questionnaire. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048610.tInfluenza A Vaccine in Chronic Hepatitis CTable 6. Characteristics and type of response in group of patients with CHC after hepatitis C virus treatment.CHC with ongoing treatment (n = 15) Peg-interferon a-2a, n ( ) Dose of Peg-interferon (mcg) Dose of ribavirin (mg) SVR, n ( ) Viral load (IU) AST (IU) ALT (IU) Forns fibrosis indexy APRI FIB-4 12 (80) 113641 9606155 7/15 (46.7) 57879761255219 33621 35634 5.3661.5 0.7560.37 1.8260.CHC treated after vaccination (n = 8) 4 (50) 144638 10006185 5/8 (62.5) 1281526282710 34619 36628 5.4161.8 0.9560.40 2.9662.P value0.13 0.09 0.58 0.67 0.59 0.63 0.72 0.89 0.16 0.CHC, chronic hepatitis C; SVR, sustained virological response; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; APRI, AST to platelet ratio index. Mean 6 standard deviation. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048610.testablished for seasonal influenza vaccines (proportions of seroprotection .70 , seroconversion .40 and GMTR of HI antibody titers .2.5) were largely achieved [30]. Although the size of the cohorts included in the study does not allow firm conclusions, the incidence of respiratory infections due to influenza A infection in our vacc.

On, severe influenza infection has occurred after vaccination and doubts about

About author

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.