Dataset Information

The safety and efficacy of the tetanus vaccine intramuscularly versus subcutaneously in anticoagulated patients: a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In patients treated with oral anticoagulants, subcutaneous injections of anti-tetanus vaccine are usually recommended to reduce the risk of bleeding, although the effectiveness of the vaccine has only been proven for intramuscular injection. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of intramuscular and subcutaneous injections of tetanus-diphtheria vaccine in patients treated with oral anticoagulants. METHODS/DESIGN: We present a prospective, double blinded, clinical trial comparing two groups of patients with oral anticoagulants: one group was administered tetanus-diphtheria vaccine by intramuscular injection, while the other was administered the same vaccine by subcutaneous injection. Allocation to each group was randomized and the duration of the study was six years. STUDY POPULATION: all patients treated with oral anticoagulants, who had been administered with at least one dose of vaccine, at 15 Health Centres in Vigo (Spain), and who agreed to participate in the study. The sample size was 115 patients in each group. The main variables for the safety analysis were the measurement of the brachial diameter, the appearance of basic injuries at the vaccine administration site, the appearance of pain and systemic reactions. The variable used for the efficacy analysis was a significant increase in the titres of anti-tetanus toxoid antibodies.An Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed. Details will be classified according to the administration route, while within each group a 3-tiered stratification will be defined by the administered number of doses. As a measure of association, relative risk will be estimated; the reduction of relative risk will also measured. For safety and to control the confounder effect, a logistic regression analysis will be carried out. As a measure of impact the reduction of absolute risk in relation to the total number of patients to be treated and the Number Needed to Treat will be estimated.CONSORT 2010 guidelines were applied for reporting parallel group randomised trials. DISCUSSION: The most significant difficulties on the project are related to the large number of participating centres, required to obtain a viable study population sample size, and the coordination given the scattering of the centres and researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69942081.

SUBMITTER: Lago-Deibe FI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4158096 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The safety and efficacy of the tetanus vaccine intramuscularly versus subcutaneously in anticoagulated patients: a randomized clinical trial.

Lago-Deibe Fernando I FI Martín-Miguel Maria-Victoria MV Velicia-Peñas Carmen C Gómez-Serranillos Isabel Rey IR Fontanillo-Fontanillo Manuela M

BMC family practice 20140828

<h4>Background</h4>In patients treated with oral anticoagulants, subcutaneous injections of anti-tetanus vaccine are usually recommended to reduce the risk of bleeding, although the effectiveness of the vaccine has only been proven for intramuscular injection. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of intramuscular and subcutaneous injections of tetanus-diphtheria vaccine in patients treated with oral anticoagulants.<h4>Methods/design</h4>We present a prospective, dou ...[more]

PMID: 25168768

Similar Datasets

Project description:DesignProspective, double-blind clinical trial comparing tetanus-diphtheria vaccine administration routes, intramuscular (IM) vs. subcutaneous (SC) injection, in patients with oral anticoagulants. ISRCTN69942081.Study populationPatients treated with oral anticoagulants, 15 health centers, Vigo (Spain). Sample size, 117 in each group.Outcome variablesSafety analysis: systemic reactions and, at the vaccine administration site, erythematic, swelling, hematoma, granuloma, pain.Effectiveness analysis: differences in tetanus toxoid antibody titers.Independent variables: route, sex, age, baseline serology, number of doses administered.AnalysisFollowing the CONSORT guidelines, we performed an intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted a descriptive study of the variables included in both groups (117 in each group) and a bivariate analysis. Fewer than 5% of missing values. Imputation in baseline and final serology with the median was performed. Lost values were assumed to be values missing at random. We conducted a descriptive study of the variables and compared routes. For safety, multivariate logistic regression was applied, with each safety criterion as outcome and the independent variables. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. For effectiveness, a generalized additive mixed model, with the difference between final and initial antibody titers as outcome. Due to the bimodal distribution of the outcome, the normal mixture fitting with gamlssMX was used. All statistical analyses were performed with the gamlss.mx and texreg packages of the R free software environment.ResultsA previously published protocol was used across the 6-year study period. The breakdown by sex and route showed: 102 women and 132 men; and 117 IM and 117 SC, with one dose administered in over 80% of participants. There were no differences between groups in any independent variable. The second and third doses administered were not analyzed, due to the low number of cases. In terms of safety, there were no severe general reactions. Locally, significant adjusted differences were observed: in pain, by sex (male, OR: 0.39) and route (SC, OR: 0.55); in erythema, by sex (male, OR: 0.34) and route (SC, OR: 5.21); and in swelling, by sex (male, OR: 0.37) and route (SC, OR: 2.75). In terms of effectiveness, the model selected was the one adjusted for baseline serology.

Project description:BackgroundSeasonal influenza results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, but the currently licensed inactivated vaccines generally have low vaccine efficacies and could be improved. In this phase 1 clinical trial, we compared seasonal influenza vaccine regimens with different priming strategies, prime-boost intervals, and administration routes to determine the impact of these variables on the resulting antibody response.MethodsBetween August 17, 2012 and January 25, 2013, four sites enrolled healthy adults 18-70 years of age. Subjects were randomized to receive one of the following vaccination regimens: trivalent hemagglutinin (HA) DNA prime followed by trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) boost with a 3.5 month interval (DNA-IIV3), IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (IIV3-IIV3), or concurrent DNA and IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (DNA/IIV3-IIV3). Each regimen was additionally stratified by an IIV3 administration route of either intramuscular (IM) or intradermal (ID). DNA vaccines were administered by a needle-free jet injector (Biojector). Study objectives included evaluating the safety and tolerability of each regimen and measuring the antibody response by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI).ResultsThree hundred and sixteen subjects enrolled. Local reactogenicity was mild to moderate in severity, with higher frequencies recorded following DNA vaccine administered by Biojector compared to IIV3 by either route (p <0.02 for pain, swelling, and redness) and following IIV3 by ID route compared to IM route (p <0.001 for swelling and redness). Systemic reactogenicity was similar between regimens. Though no overall differences were observed between regimens, the highest titers post boost were observed in the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route and in the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route.ConclusionsAll vaccination regimens were found to be safe and tolerable. While there were no overall differences between regimens, the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route, and the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route, showed higher responses compared to the other same-route regimens.

Project description:Two phylogenetic lineages of influenza B virus coexist and circulate in the human population (B/Yamagata and B/Victoria) but only one B-strain is included in each seasonal vaccine. Mismatch regularly occurs between the recommended and circulating B-strain. Inclusion of both lineages in vaccines may offer better protection against influenza.This study (NCT00714285) assessed the immunogenicity and safety of two candidate quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV) containing two A- and two B-strains (one from each lineage) in adults (18-60 years). Subjects were randomized and stratified by age to receive either QIV (non-adjuvanted or low-dose adjuvanted [LD QIV-AS]) or trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV, non-adjuvanted or low-dose adjuvanted [LD TIV-AS]), N?=?105 in all treatment groups. The study evaluated the statistical non-inferiority of the immunological response elicited by QIV and LD QIV-AS versus TIV and LD TIV-AS and the statistical superiority of the response elicited by the quadrivalent vaccines against the B-strain (B/Jiangsu) not included in the TIV.Pre-defined non-inferiority and superiority criteria were reached for both QIVs compared to the TIVs. On Day 21 in all vaccine groups SCRs were ?54.8%, SPRs ?88.5% and SCFs ?5.4 for the A strains and B strain included in all vaccines (B/Malaysia). This fulfilled the European (CHMP) and the US (CBER) licensing criteria for the assessment of influenza vaccines in adults (CHMP criteria: SCR?>?40%, SPR?>?70%, SCF?>?2; CBER criteria: LL of 95% CI for SPR???70% or SCR???40%). Only the QIVs met the CHMP and CBER criteria for the B/Jiangsu strain. In the QIV and LD-QIV-AS groups, the SCFs were 9.1 and 8.1, respectively and the SPRs were 98.1% and 95.2%, whereas for the TIV and LD-TIV-AS groups, the SCFs were 2.3 and 2.5, respectively, and the SPRs were 75.0% and 63.8%, with the LLs of the 95% CI <70% for SPR and <40% for SCR.Addition of a fourth strain did not impact the immune response elicited by the three original strains contained in the TIV. A clear immunological benefit was seen with the QIV formulation for the second B-strain, indicating that quadrivalent vaccines could provide broader protection against influenza.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00714285.

Project description:ImportanceDevelopment of effective, scalable therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 is a priority.ObjectiveTo test the efficacy of combined tixagevimab and cilgavimab monoclonal antibodies for early COVID-19 treatment.Design, setting, and participantsTwo phase 2 randomized blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-2/A5401 platform were performed at US ambulatory sites. Nonhospitalized adults 18 years or older within 10 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test and symptom onset were eligible and were enrolled from February 1 to May 31, 2021.InterventionsTixagevimab-cilgavimab, 300 mg (150 mg of each component) given intravenously (IV) or 600 mg (300 mg of each component) given intramuscularly (IM) in the lateral thigh, or pooled placebo.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary outcomes were time to symptom improvement through 28 days; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) on days 3, 7, or 14; and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events through 28 days.ResultsA total of 229 participants were randomized for the IM study and 119 were randomized for the IV study. The primary modified intention-to-treat population included 223 participants who initiated IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 106) or placebo treatment (n = 117) (median age, 39 [IQR, 30-48] years; 113 [50.7%] were men) and 114 who initiated IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n = 58) or placebo treatment (n = 56) (median age, 44 [IQR, 35-54] years; 67 [58.8%] were women). Enrollment in the IV study was stopped early based on a decision to focus on IM product development. Participants were enrolled at a median of 6 (IQR, 4-7) days from COVID-19 symptom onset. Significant differences in time to symptom improvement were not observed for IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo. A greater proportion in the IM tixagevimab-cilgavimab arm (69 of 86 [80.2%]) than placebo (62 of 96 [64.6%]) had nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA below LLOQ at day 7 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.12-1.57]) but not days 3 and 14; the joint test across time points favored treatment (P = .003). Differences in the proportion below LLOQ were not observed for IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab vs placebo at any of the specified time points. There were no safety signals with either administration route.ConclusionsIn these 2 phase 2 randomized clinical trials, IM or IV tixagevimab-cilgavimab was safe but did not change time to symptom improvement. Antiviral activity was more evident in the larger IM trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410.

Dataset Information

The safety and efficacy of the tetanus vaccine intramuscularly versus subcutaneously in anticoagulated patients: a randomized clinical trial.

Publications

The safety and efficacy of the tetanus vaccine intramuscularly versus subcutaneously in anticoagulated patients: a randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets