Why the study?
Does subcutaneous administration of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine improve immunogenicity and safety compared to intramuscular administration in nonambulatory individuals with neuromuscular diseases?
Does subcutaneous administration of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine improve immunogenicity and safety compared to intramuscular administration in nonambulatory individuals with neuromuscular diseases?
Subcutaneous administration of the influenza vaccine provides similar immunogenicity to intramuscular administration in nonambulatory patients with neuromuscular diseases, with potentially better local tolerance.
Equivalent immunogenicity supports subcutaneous as alternative to intramuscular influenza vaccination in nonambulatory neuromuscular patients; confirms route equivalence.
Individuals with neuromuscular disease show a wide spectrum of muscle pathology. To test the hypothesis that the immune response to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine is potentially inadequate when given intramuscularly into a fibrosed muscle, this prospective randomized study compared the immunogenicity and safety of the standard intramuscular versus subcutaneous administration of the influenza vaccine in 22 nonambulatory subjects, of whom 10 have been on glucocorticoid therapy. Analysis of hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers showed high prevalence of seroprotection (prevaccination of 82% H1N1, 72% H3N2, 31% B; postvaccination of 100% H1N1, 77% H3N2, 59% B). Geometric mean titer ratios for each antigen showed no significant difference (P > .5) between intramuscular and subcutaneous routes. Seroprotection was not adversely affected by glucocorticoid therapy. Local tolerance was better with subcutaneous route. Larger studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Golekoh et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: