ライフサイエンスコーパス: inactivated vaccine

1 rtion of residents have been inoculated with inactivated vaccine.

2 candidate for the development of novel PRRS inactivated vaccine.

3 tenfold higher than those from the licensed inactivated vaccine.

4 three doses of a licensed, adjuvanted human inactivated vaccine.

5 as well as concurrent receipt compared with inactivated vaccine.

6 e efficacy of 60% (95% CI, 33 to 77) for the inactivated vaccine.

7 for the live vaccine was higher than for the inactivated vaccine.

8 ccine had significantly better efficacy than inactivated vaccine.

9 ponses after immunization with either DNA or inactivated vaccines.

10 for yearly reformulation of strain-specific inactivated vaccines.

11 ination and simultaneous receipt of selected inactivated vaccines.

12 ity but have reduced safety when compared to inactivated vaccines.

13 ilities for safe and inexpensive subunit and inactivated vaccines.

14 tive when elicited by live organisms than by inactivated vaccines.

15 la vaccine (3625 pfu) or of a partially heat-inactivated vaccine (1125 or 439 pfu).

16 ated vaccine than in the group that received inactivated vaccine (153 vs. 338 cases, P<0.001).

17 ated vaccine (3.8%) than among recipients of inactivated vaccine (2.1%, P=0.076).

18 However, current inactivated vaccines administered by intramuscular injec

19 iology recommend influenza immunization with inactivated vaccine (administered intramuscularly) as pa

20 za virus vaccines and of large quantities of inactivated vaccines after the emergence or reemergence

21 The absolute efficacy of the inactivated vaccine against both types of virus was 77%

22 The recommended vaccination schedule was inactivated vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, pertuss

23 Administration of a formalin inactivated vaccine against RSV to children in the 1960s

24 inical studies have indicated that subvirion inactivated vaccines against avian influenza viruses, pa

25 pear to be different for live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines among children aged 2-8 years, alth

26 a A virus was 72% (95% CI, 49 to 84) for the inactivated vaccine and 29% (95% CI, -14 to 55) for the

27 confidence interval [CI], 46 to 81) for the inactivated vaccine and 36% (95% CI, 0 to 59) for the li

28 eriod of peak influenza activity was 56% for inactivated vaccine and 47% for attenuated vaccine.

29 g 78%, 88%, and 53% of children who received inactivated vaccine and among 55%, 79%, and 30% of child

30 rotein candidates for development of a safer inactivated vaccine and provides insight into the divers

31 hes currently being tested include subvirion inactivated vaccines and cold-adapted, live attenuated v

32 were immunogenic in animals vaccinated with inactivated vaccines and subsequently protected against

33 Separate estimates were calculated for the inactivated vaccines and the live attenuated vaccine.

34 ce has accrued on the protection afforded by inactivated vaccines and the safety and efficacy in chil

35 d trial involving healthy adults showed that inactivated vaccine appeared to be efficacious, whereas

36 Inactivated vaccines are available but require multiple

37 andemic antigens, particularly H5, subvirion inactivated vaccines are poorly immunogenic, for reasons

38 ncy of an influenza A/Puerto Rico/8/34 virus inactivated vaccine as a poly(I.C)- or a squalene-based

39 firmed influenza among subjects who received inactivated vaccine as compared with those given live at

40 was 63% (95% CI, 45 to 75; P<0.001) for the inactivated vaccine, as compared with -19% (95% CI, -113

41 last vaccine received was live compared with inactivated vaccine, as well as concurrent receipt compa

42 cally not as efficient as live attenuated or inactivated vaccines at inducing protective immune respo

43 The MF59 adjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine (ATIV) was developed to increase the

44 However, better inactivated vaccines, better rapid diagnostic tests, and

45 nesia/5/2005) followed by an H5N1 monovalent inactivated vaccine boost at 4, 8, 12, 16, or 24 weeks t

46 nd its priming immune responses with an H5N1 inactivated vaccine boost.

47 d vaccine was slightly less than that of the inactivated vaccine, but not statistically greater than

48 etter cross-protective immune responses than inactivated vaccines by eliciting local mucosal immunity

49 d West Nile viruses, and vaccination with an inactivated vaccine can effectively prevent disease.

50 ian influenza vaccine usage, and efficacious inactivated vaccines can be developed using antigenic va

51 ctively) and for those who received live and inactivated vaccines concurrently compared with inactiva

52 owever, well-tolerated and immunogenic, with inactivated vaccines containing 15mug of HA generally in

53 dividuals immunized with a poorly protective inactivated vaccine contracted measles, and was postulat

54 immunization of the homologous or Sw/Iowa/30-inactivated vaccine developed HI and VN antibodies to th

55 AV) in the United States is hindered because inactivated vaccines do not provide robust cross-protect

56 In addition, antibodies elicited by inactivated vaccines effectively neutralized the cytotox

57 ve among children in a year with substantial inactivated vaccine effectiveness.

58 serologic end point alone will overestimate inactivated vaccine efficacy.

59 onstrated that mice receiving a conventional inactivated vaccine followed by a skin-applied dissolvin

60 An ideal inactivated vaccine for influenza A virus would induce n

61 ality, yet the systems to produce high yield inactivated vaccines for these viruses have lagged behin

62 advantages that may speed the development of inactivated vaccines for use in humans and potentially l

63 es for use in humans and potentially live or inactivated vaccines for use in nonhuman primates at ris

64 Most notably, immunization with inactivated vaccines generated in vivo protective immuni

65 Inactivated vaccines given to European travelers were fo

66 intervention, subjects with influenza in the inactivated vaccine group were less likely than those in

67 injection site) were observed in 27% of the inactivated vaccine group, and coryza (12%) and sore thr

68 Nearly all recipients of inactivated vaccine had postvaccination titers of at lea

69 High-dose (HD) trivalent inactivated vaccine has increased immunogenicity in olde

70 ith inactivated alone or concurrent live and inactivated vaccines (HR, 0.50; 95% confidence interval

71 administered influenza vaccine) or trivalent inactivated vaccine in a double-blind manner.

72 included, efficacy was demonstrated for the inactivated vaccine in a year with low influenza attack

73 weeks to that of 2 doses of H5N1 monovalent inactivated vaccine in adults.

74 e attenuated influenza vaccine with those of inactivated vaccine in infants and young children.

75 s of age (6.1%) than among the recipients of inactivated vaccine in this age group (2.6%, P=0.002).

76 eradication and the potential role played by inactivated vaccine in this setting.

77 against the virus conferred by different H7 inactivated vaccines in chickens.

78 lative efficacies of the live attenuated and inactivated vaccines in preventing laboratory-confirmed

79 e measure of successful vaccination with the inactivated vaccine is a systemic rise in immunoglobulin

80 The available inactivated vaccine is effective for preventing influenz

81 A formalin-inactivated vaccine is not suitable for these viruses be

82 Experimental inactivated vaccines made with PWT/06 HPAI virus or rg-g

83 ody response to influenza A(H5N1) monovalent inactivated vaccine (MIV) among individuals for whom the

84 naive mothers responded well to both DNA and inactivated vaccines, only DNA immunization induced effe

85 sen for production of a monotypic, purified, inactivated vaccine (PIV).

86 ghly pathogenic avian H5N1 viruses, using an inactivated vaccine prepared from nonpathogenic A/Duck/S

87 ommon with live attenuated vaccine than with inactivated vaccine, primarily among children 6 to 11 mo

88 dy levels and outcome in human patients, and inactivated vaccines produce high titers of antibodies t

89 However, vaccination with an inactivated vaccine produces antibodies exclusively to t

90 lycoprotein Ags, neutralizing Abs induced by inactivated vaccines provide limited cross-protection ag

91 Inactivated vaccine provided marginal protection against

92 Live influenza vaccine and inactivated vaccine provided similar protection against

93 Current PRRS inactivated vaccine provides only a limited protection a

94 Intranasal immunization in mice with this inactivated vaccine provoked specific antibodies against

95 ttenuated vaccine recipients but only 23% of inactivated vaccine recipients demonstrated serologic co

96 Inactivated vaccines remain the principal intervention f

97 ccine with hydrogen peroxide; the chemically inactivated vaccine remained antigenic and protective in

98 of seasonal (s) H1N1 infection, s-trivalent inactivated vaccine (s-TIV), and trivalent s-live attenu

99 Photochemically inactivated vaccine strains maintained a high degree of

100 Killed or inactivated vaccines targeting intracellular bacterial a

101 dered by previous experience with a formalin-inactivated vaccine that predisposed to a severe form of

102 e subtype IAB VEEV that were used to prepare inactivated vaccines that probably initiated several out

103 random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza

104 n compared to that of the standard trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) in children with cancer.

105 eness of ATIV versus nonadjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) in individuals at least 65 yea

106 body responses following influenza trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) vaccinations remains largely u

107 n (HA) were compared with standard trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV).

108 uenza vaccine (MIIV) and 2010-2011 trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV).

109 IV) while most others received the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV).

110 ceived seasonal influenza vaccine (trivalent inactivated vaccine [TIV]) 1 year after receipt of eithe

111 the ability of a formaldehyde-treated, heat-inactivated vaccine to induce modest antibody responses

112 In contrast, the inability of inactivated vaccines to replicate enhances safety at the

113 to that induced by a facsimile of a formalin-inactivated vaccine used in previous clinical trials and

114 However, traditional inactivated vaccines used in animals are costly and have

115 n whether influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent inactivated vaccines used in the USA increased the risk

116 nfection (VE(P) = 67%, 95% CI: 24, 100) than inactivated vaccine (VE(P) = 29%, 95% CI: -19, 76), alth

117 %, 95% confidence interval (CI): 15, 66; for inactivated vaccine: VE(S) = 43%, 95% CI: 8, 79).

118 ved positivity because presumably the RNA of inactivated vaccine virus will not integrate into the ho

119 The absolute efficacy of the inactivated vaccine was 16% (95% confidence interval [CI

120 Immunization of females with an inactivated vaccine was also found to elicit a protectiv

121 In the 2007-2008 season, the inactivated vaccine was efficacious in preventing labora

122 imilar to those included in the vaccine, the inactivated vaccine was efficacious in preventing labora

123 of live attenuated vaccine, as compared with inactivated vaccine, was observed for both antigenically

124 ectiveness estimates for live attenuated and inactivated vaccine were 81% (95% CI, -37 to 97), and 58

125 ion against HAV using commercially available inactivated vaccine were compared in a Markov model anal

126 Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent inactivated vaccines were associated with a small increa

127 with a superior product profile to existing inactivated vaccines, which could lead to improved vacci

128 cosal and cell-mediated immunity better than inactivated vaccines while also requiring a smaller dose