ab Steinhoff 1991.
Methods | RCT to compare characteristics of 2 live reassortant vaccines: cold‐adapted (ca) and avian‐human (ah) Vaccines were manufactured by isolating wild‐type A/Kawasaki/9/86 (H1N1) in tissue culture and 4 times passage in tissue culture and once in eggs. These were crossed with donor strains to produce reassortant vaccines. Each vaccine was diluted in L‐15 medium (Whitaker Bioproducts) to achieve desired number of infectious units. Vaccines were evaluated in 1987 and 1988 during periods when no influenza viruses were circulating. Vaccines initially tested in young adults (data not extracted) before continuing with children's study. | |
Participants | 122 children aged 6 to 24 months seronegative to A/Kawasaki/86 (H1N1) were randomised to receive a first dose of either ah (40 children), ca (39), or placebo (43). | |
Interventions |
Vaccines were administered in dose‐escalating fashion; after each dose was shown to be safe, 10‐fold higher dose administered until dose of 106 TCID50 was reached. Each child received 1 0.5 mL dose (0.25 mL per nostril). Children were observed for 1 to 2 hours daily for 3 days before inoculation; 7 to 9 days after each dose was shown to be safe, 10‐fold higher dose was administered until dose of 106 TCID50 was reached. |
|
Outcomes |
Serological
Effectiveness N/A Safety
Children were observed for 1 to 2 hours daily for 3 days before inoculation and 7 to 9 days after. |
|
Funding Source | Government | |
Notes | The authors conclude that the ca A/Ann Arbor/6/60 donor virus reliably confers attenuation characteristics to a variety of H1N1 and H3N2 influenza A viruses. No description of randomisation, allocation, attrition, or placebo. Data on adults were not extracted. Data by TCID not extracted separately. Data on ILI with or without infection were extracted, as these are responses to viral challenge. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not described |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No losses to follow‐up |
Summary assessments | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to assess study design |