ライフサイエンスコーパス: influenza vaccine

1 vaccine or placebo (all received inactivated influenza vaccine).

2 tope in determining the immunogenicity of an influenza vaccine.

3 chitosan (PC) nanogel as an adjuvant for the influenza vaccine.

4 for the effective development of a universal influenza vaccine.

5 ise compromised Ab production to inactivated influenza vaccine.

6 nd after vaccination with trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine.

7 children that had never been immunized with influenza vaccine.

8 the design and implementation of "universal" influenza vaccine.

9 may impact our efforts to design a universal influenza vaccine.

10 revitalized hopes of developing a universal influenza vaccine.

11 one of the licensed seasonal live attenuated influenza vaccine.

12 ficiaries than was standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine.

13 h to develop an easy-to-administer universal influenza vaccine.

14 in 2016-17 and to switch to the inactivated influenza vaccine.

15 elected for inclusion in the annual seasonal influenza vaccine.

16 out the effectiveness of the live attenuated influenza vaccine.

17 children who received the 2012-2013 seasonal influenza vaccine.

18 be a first step toward the desired universal influenza vaccine.

19 ise for improving the design of prophylactic influenza vaccines.

20 drift, thus necessitating annual updates of influenza vaccines.

21 s are crucial for evaluating the efficacy of influenza vaccines.

22 re suitable to select for highly efficacious influenza vaccines.

23 continued development of novel approaches to influenza vaccines.

24 rmation to support the design of more potent influenza vaccines.

25 g sequential administration of then-standard influenza vaccines.

26 currently limited to tetanus, pertussis, and influenza vaccines.

27 spective for future exploration of universal influenza vaccines.

28 targeting of antibodies induced by universal influenza vaccines.

29 es than in those that received standard-dose influenza vaccines (0.185 per 1000 resident-days or 3.4%

30 per million doses for inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (10 cases, 7,434,628 doses given alone

31 ontrolled trial [cRCT]) used live attenuated influenza vaccine, 11 (7 cRCTs) used inactivated influen

32 owed by intramuscular injection of trivalent influenza vaccine 14 days later.

33 per million doses for inactivated monovalent influenza vaccine (2 cases, 1,090,279 doses given alone)

34 rol group) or 2 doses (booster group) of the influenza vaccine 5 weeks apart.

35 to develop broadly reactive subtype-specific influenza vaccines, a methodology called computationally

36 en the protective efficiency of conventional influenza vaccines, a new 4M2e-tFliC fusion protein cons

37 abetic subjects vaccinated with the seasonal influenza vaccine across five consecutive seasons.

38 and the need of annual updating of the anti-influenza vaccine, added to the rapid emergence of viral

39 nses provoked by H5N1 and 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines after a single dose of intradermal, b

40 The effectiveness of the influenza vaccine against any influenza illness was 48%

41 n vitro restimulation with pertussis or H1N1 influenza vaccine Ags.

42 reviously vaccinated with 2009-2010 seasonal influenza vaccine also showed greater expansion of tumor

43 al strategies to enhance immune responses to influenza vaccine among HIV-infected persons are needed.

44 (18%) of 1173 recipients of live attenuated influenza vaccine and 105 (18%) of placebo recipients, g

45 076 (8.8%) pregnant women received trivalent influenza vaccine and 377 stillbirths occurred.

46 ly assigned, 1174 to receive live attenuated influenza vaccine and 587 to receive placebo.

47 efforts to move the ferret model forward for influenza vaccine and challenge studies.

48 reduced effectiveness of the live attenuated influenza vaccine and highlight the underpinning scienti

49 additional efforts to increase the uptake of influenza vaccines and antivirals.

50 for development and design of more universal influenza vaccines and novel therapeutics.

51 (HA) is the principal antigen in inactivated influenza vaccines and the target of protective antibodi

52 Current licensed influenza vaccines and their production have various lim

53 eraction, to support development of improved influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies.

54 uenza vaccine, 11 (7 cRCTs) used inactivated influenza vaccine, and 5 (1 cRCT) compared both vaccine

55 were aged 18-49 years, naive to the 2014-15 influenza vaccine, and did not have any significant derm

56 enza seasons with greater antigenic match to influenza vaccine, and for more specific definitions of

57 nza C is not included in the annual seasonal influenza vaccine, and has historically been regarded as

58 compare their antibody response against the influenza vaccine, and their CD8(+) T-cell response agai

59 ice were immunized intramuscularly with H1N1 influenza vaccine antigens in combination with NanoSiO2,

60 The live attenuated influenza vaccine appears to protect particularly poorly

61 rt further exploration of this new conjugate influenza vaccine approach as a platform for use in the

62 del that could be used to identify effective influenza vaccine approaches for use in young infants.

63 Universal influenza vaccine approaches have the potential to be pa

64 veness (VE) estimates for 2015-2016 seasonal influenza vaccine are reported from Canada's Sentinel Pr

65 esponses to standard-dose intramuscular (IM) influenza vaccine are suboptimal in this population.

66 Antibody responses to seasonal influenza vaccines are defective during older age and hu

67 As new influenza vaccines are developed, NA content should be c

68 his review focuses on how currently licensed influenza vaccines are generated in the U.S., why the bi

69 Most influenza vaccines are manufactured in eggs, and the ina

70 Improved influenza vaccines are needed to control seasonal epidem

71 Current inactivated influenza vaccines are strain specific and new vaccines

72 Seasonal influenza vaccines are transitioning to quadrivalent for

73 Available influenza vaccines are variably effective each season, a

74 HA) stem is a promising target for universal influenza vaccine as stem-specific antibodies have the p

75 the efficacy and safety of a live attenuated influenza vaccine based on Russian-derived master donor

76 gnize the avian-adapted H1 strain in current influenza vaccines but not the circulating new pandemic

77 or received a single dose of (4) inactivated influenza vaccine by microneedle patch self-administered

78 mpared with standard-dose vaccine, high-dose influenza vaccine can reduce risk of respiratory-related

79 act, and that S-FLU is a promising universal influenza vaccine candidate.

80 MPORTANCE Currently, many groups are testing influenza vaccine candidates to meet the challenge of de

81 In this study, novel, broadly reactive influenza vaccine candidates were assessed in preimmune

82 he immune correlates of protection for avian influenza vaccines cannot be determined from clinical st

83 Inactivated influenza vaccines confer protection by inducing neutral

84 Influenza vaccine containing an oil-in-water emulsion ad

85 Universal influenza vaccines could have substantial health and eco

86 Influenza vaccine coverage was 27% among children aged 6

87 Immune responses to influenza vaccines decline with age, reducing clinical e

88 Ab responses to influenza will aid rational influenza vaccine design.

89 f emerging antigenic variants is critical to influenza vaccine design.

90 Influenza vaccine development has traditionally focused

91 presents an advance in seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccine development.

92 influenza antigenicity, which is critical to influenza vaccine development.

93 Two girls who had received live attenuated influenza vaccine died, one due to anasarca 12 days post

94 ound in comparisons of patients who received influenza vaccine during a surgical hospitalization and

95 ve response to vaccination with the seasonal influenza vaccine during early childhood, and identify p

96 spontaneous abortion after administration of influenza vaccine during pregnancy.

97 investigated the impact of statin therapy on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically a

98 Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary by type an

99 omplications, including hospitalization, but influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) data are limited fo

100 We examined the influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the 2013-201

101 Recent studies suggest that influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may wane over the c

102 Background: Recent studies suggest that influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may wane over the c

103 useholds in New York City, overall 2013-2014 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 62.5% (95% conf

104 t studies suggest that statin use may reduce influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE), but laboratory-con

105 recognized needs to identify determinants of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE), including the effe

106 variability of influenza A(H3N2) viruses on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE).

107 ehold cohort maintained in part for study of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE).

108 t of this change as part of its estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in 2015-2016.

109 Influenza vaccine effectiveness is not optimal in solid

110 The Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network evaluated the ef

111 A(H3N2) viruses from patients enrolled at US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network sites.

112 attended acute respiratory illness in the US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network using data poole

113 attended acute respiratory illness in the US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network using data poole

114 We estimated an influenza vaccine effectiveness of 9% (hazard ratio = 0.

115 characterize potential biases in studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness using the test-negative

116 Bias is evident when estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness, even after adjustment f

117 er vaccination coverage, as well as improved influenza vaccines (especially those offering better pro

118 nalyse CD4+ T-cell responses to the seasonal influenza vaccine, establishing a frequency hierarchy an

119 he potential to be paradigm shifting for the influenza vaccine field, with the goal of replacing the

120 The live attenuated influenza vaccine FluMist has been proven safe and effec

121 ps and received a single dose of inactivated influenza vaccine (fluvirin: 18 mug of haemagglutinin pe

122 went skin prick tests, and received 0.1ml of influenza vaccine, followed in 30 minutes if no reaction

123 Even so, effectiveness of influenza vaccine for older adults has been reported to

124 oduction capabilities of the live attenuated influenza vaccine for pandemic preparedness.

125 rnal immunisation with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for protection of infants against a fi

126 ecommendation not to use the live attenuated influenza vaccine for the 2016-2017 influenza season.

127 We compared different anti-influenza vaccines for their protective potential in a m

128 Seasonal influenza vaccine formulas change almost every year yet

129 Seasonal influenza vaccine formulation efforts struggle to keep u

130 ts ages 48-64 who received multiple seasonal influenza vaccines from 2004 to 2009 for cross-neutraliz

131 eived high-dose or standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccines from community pharmacies that offere

132 of 2064 infants in the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine group and 1793 (88%) of 2041 infants i

133 mmon in infants in the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine group than in those in the quadrivalen

134 e group vs n=52 in the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine group).

135 d 61 (3%) women in the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine group.

136 duals with a robust antibody response to the influenza vaccine had significantly longer telomeres tha

137 tential advantages for NA standardization in influenza vaccines has emerged.

138 Live attenuated influenza vaccines have been shown to significantly redu

139 Recipients of high-dose vs standard-dose influenza vaccines have fewer influenza illnesses.

140 including oral cholera vaccine and pandemic influenza vaccine, have prompted discussion on expansion

141 ed influenza vaccine (LAIV) over inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) among children aged 2-8 years.

142 ess of trivalent or quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) among subjects ages >/=6 months

143 olled trial of the efficacies of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and live attenuated influenza va

144 in a placebo-controlled trial of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and live-attenuated influenza va

145 012 on the efficacy of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) during pregnancy were followed d

146 In children, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) elicited neutralizing antibodies

147 -dose (HD) to standard-dose (SD) inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in 205 frail, elderly residents

148 ne (LAIV) is more effective than inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in providing both direct protect

149 ate vaccine efficacy of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) is controversial.

150 Inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) is recommended during pregnancy

151 High-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV-HD) is an alternative to the stan

152 alternative to the standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV-SD) in the United States for infl

153 icity, and efficacy of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) during pregnancy were followed

154 d-dose, egg-grown, quadrivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) during the A/H3N2-predominant 2

155 rd-dose, egg-grown, quadrivalent-inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) for immunogenicity and safety i

156 red with a quadrivalent seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) was investigated in a phase 3,

157 Currently, only inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) are available for the preventi

158 To date, only inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) are available to prevent CIV i

159 Influenza vaccine immunogenicity is suboptimal in immuno

160 antigens that were represented in commercial influenza vaccines.IMPORTANCE There is a need for an imp

161 ctiveness of a broadly reactive or universal influenza vaccine in a preimmune ferret model.IMPORTANCE

162 ogenicity of adjuvanted versus nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine in adult kidney transplant patients.

163 ical trial of adjuvanted versus unadjuvanted influenza vaccine in elderly persons to evaluate the inf

164 ID vs standard-dose (15 microg) IM inactive influenza vaccine in HIV-infected men in Bangkok, Thaila

165 of pregnant women with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in Mali-a poorly resourced country wit

166 ighten deficiencies in antibody responses to influenza vaccine in older individuals.

167 mic impact of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in participants in the FIM12 study pop

168 tibody responses to the inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD

169 tion (VHA) medical centers, and who received influenza vaccine in the 2010-2011 influenza season.

170 the immunogenicity of standard-dose ID vs IM influenza vaccine in this HIV-infected population in Tha

171 recombinant versus inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccines in 18-49 year old adults showed compa

172 Most preclinical animal studies test influenza vaccines in immunologically naive animal model

173 tinued annual monitoring of effectiveness of influenza vaccines in the United States.

174 Influenza vaccines including the MF59 oil-in-water adjuv

175 protective immune responses to a T-dependent influenza vaccine independent of CD4(+) T cells.

176 Development of a universal influenza vaccine is a research priority for the Nationa

177 Influenza vaccine is known to have suboptimal immunogeni

178 elated morbidity and mortality risk, but the influenza vaccine is less effective in the elderly.

179 IM12 study showed that high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine is more effective than standard-dose v

180 Annual influenza vaccine is recommended for those at greatest r

181 al morbidity in children worldwide, although influenza vaccine is seldom used in low-resource setting

182 between seasons, and the composition of the influenza vaccine is updated annually.

183 However, the efficacy of current influenza vaccines is suboptimal, and novel approaches a

184 The aim of candidate universal influenza vaccines is to provide broad protection agains

185 A goal for next-generation influenza vaccines is to reduce escape likelihood by sel

186 unogenicity of an avian H5N2 live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV H5N2) in healthy Thai adults and

187 safety of a Russian-backbone live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) at two field sites in Banglades

188 controlled clinical trial of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in children aged 24-59 months i

189 a vaccine (TIV) or trivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in Thailand.

190 Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is an intranasal vaccine recent

191 ing children with intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is more effective than inactiva

192 The live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is preferentially recommended f

193 c influenza A(H1N1) virus or live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) or who had laboratory-confirmed

194 ommended preferential use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) over inactivated influenza vacc

195 influenza vaccine (IIV) and live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) performed during the 2007-2008

196 and saliva after intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) vaccination in children.

197 influenza vaccine (IIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) were tested by hemagglutination

198 ture-sensitive H3N8 CIV as a live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), which was attenuated in mice a

199 ffectiveness of quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) among children aged 2-17 years

200 ever, recent formulations of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) have not been protective.

201 Live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) stimulate a multifaceted immu

202 Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccines mainly depends upon how well vaccine

203 Despite this, influenza vaccine may have the added benefit of inducing

204 Influenza vaccines may reduce the economic burden throug

205 Intradermal (ID) delivery of influenza vaccine might improve immune response through

206 analyzed the association of monovalent H1N1 influenza vaccine (MIV) during pregnancy with preterm bi

207 o generate an immune response in a SL murine influenza vaccine model.

208 Influenza vaccines must be frequently reformulated due t

209 Influenza vaccines must be frequently reformulated to ac

210 4193 women to receive trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (n=2108) or quadrivalent meningococcal

211 ne than in those given trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (n=253 vs n=132; p<0.0001), although 3

212 As part of an efficacy trial of pandemic influenza vaccines (NCT01051661), RSV epidemiology in he

213 Influenza vaccines of H7N9 subtype are consistently less

214 The 2014-2015 influenza vaccines offered little protection against the

215 nfluenza A epitopes as putative non-seasonal influenza vaccines; one specifically targets the US popu

216 sal dose of masked trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine or placebo.

217 12, to receive either trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine or quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine.

218 seasonally recommended trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine or saline placebo in blocks of eight,

219 -dose or standard-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine over two influenza seasons (2011-12 an

220 laser (NAFL) before insertion of a PR8 model influenza vaccine-packaged, biodegradable microneedle ar

221 rs receiving monovalent AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 influenza vaccine (Pandemrix [GlaxoSmithKline]) during p

222 concerns about the recommendation for annual influenza vaccines, particularly in persons at greatest

223 ntigen and may be an attractive approach for influenza vaccines, particularly when mass campaigns are

224 erial vaccination likely contributed to poor influenza vaccine performance in 2014-2015.

225 eed to study the impact of prior exposure on influenza vaccine performance.

226 A/Shanghai2/2013(H7N9) pandemic inactivated influenza vaccine (pIIV) 12 weeks after their first dose

227 A/Anhui/2013(H7N9) pandemic live attenuated influenza vaccine (pLAIV) in healthy adults, and assesse

228 We have developed pandemic live attenuated influenza vaccines (pLAIVs) against clade 1 H5N1 viruses

229 Influenza vaccine prevented 59%-78% of asthma attacks le

230 Mice vaccinated intramuscularly against the influenza vaccine prior to multiple infusions of rhFVIII

231 Among frail, elderly residents of LTCFs, HD influenza vaccine produced superior responses for all st

232 Cell-culture-derived (CC) influenza vaccine production methods could provide benef

233 nd and Wales began to fund a live attenuated influenza vaccine programme for individuals aged 2-16 ye

234 Influenza vaccines propagated in cultured cells are appr

235 A commercial trivalent influenza vaccine protected mice against a single high a

236 Laboratory correlates of influenza vaccine protection can best be identified by e

237 We observed decreasing influenza vaccine protection with increasing time since

238 Conclusions: We observed decreasing influenza vaccine protection with increasing time since

239 Influenza vaccines provided substantial protection again

240 nt technologies, to have sufficient pandemic influenza vaccine ready in time to impact the first wave

241 Influenza vaccine recommendations for respectively 25% a

242 Influenza vaccines reduced the risk of influenza illness

243 e immunomodulatory effects that could impact influenza vaccine response.

244 at the time of immunization is important for influenza vaccine responses and provide a rationale for

245 Influenza vaccine responses were high in both groups pos

246 Previous priming with avian influenza vaccines results in more rapid and more robust

247 A new quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) was compared directly with a st

248 older adults of a quadrivalent, recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) with a standard-dose, egg-grown

249 In order to provide annual estimates of the influenza vaccine's effectiveness, health departments ha

250 ational study, we found indirect evidence of influenza vaccine safety during pregnancy, and women who

251 fants with HAI titers of 1:40 or more to the influenza vaccine strains decreased from more than 56% i

252 "Universal" influenza vaccine strategies that focus on the developme

253 B cell pool should be an aim of 'universal' influenza vaccine strategies.

254 Annual review of multivalent influenza vaccines targets strains of influenza A and B

255 y to have received no vaccine or the subunit influenza vaccine than the split-virion vaccine (P<.001)

256 acilities where residents received high-dose influenza vaccines than in those that received standard-

257 A broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine that can be administrated by a painles

258 s.IMPORTANCE There is a need for an improved influenza vaccine that elicits immune responses that rec

259 nt significant cross-protective responses to influenza vaccine that may be an additional, previously

260 rolment, and had not previously received any influenza vaccine that season.

261 A commercial influenza vaccine that was shown to protect mice from hi

262 VSV-vectored influenza vaccines that express chimeric hemagglutinin a

263 New influenza vaccines that provide effective and broad prot

264 nded project on the human immune response to influenza vaccines.The result shows that a combination o

265 adaptive responses to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) and MF59-adjuvanted TIV (ATIV) i

266 Clinically-available trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in DMN patches is fully stable f

267 We report VE of trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) in people >/=65 years of age hos

268 d children with either trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or trivalent live-attenuated inf

269 The association of seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) with increased infection by 2009

270 have diminished immune response to trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV).

271 ars received 2010-2011 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV).

272 ) receiving the 2008/2009 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV).

273 already planning to administer the high-dose influenza vaccine to residents.

274 The ability of influenza vaccines to induce ADCC-mediating Abs (ADCC-Ab

275 e compared the effectiveness of split-virion influenza vaccines to that of subunit influenza vaccines

276 ene sets finally found to be linked with the influenza vaccine too although they were found to be ass

277 ects enrolled in an H5N1 DNA/MIV-prime-boost influenza vaccine trial, we sorted hemagglutinin cross-r

278 llected from 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2014-15 NH influenza vaccine trials, we assessed their cross-reacti

279 be taken into consideration in future avian influenza vaccine trials.

280 Offering a choice of influenza vaccine type may increase vaccine coverage and

281 th the 2012-2013 adjuvanted or nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine underwent testing by hemagglutination

282 virion influenza vaccines to that of subunit influenza vaccines using prospectively collected data fr

283 at negative interference from prior season's influenza vaccine (v1) on the current season's vaccine (

284 ildren 2 to 17 years of age, the inactivated influenza vaccine was 60% effective (95% CI, 47 to 70; P

285 m09 virus strain used in the live attenuated influenza vaccine was changed for the 2015-2016 influenz

286 AS03B-adjuvanted H5N1 influenza vaccine was immunogenic and showed an acceptab

287 A high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine was licensed in 2009 by the US Food an

288 t to establish whether high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine was more effective for prevention of i

289 The 2016-2017 seasonal influenza vaccine was updated to include a clade 3C.2a H

290 Live attenuated influenza vaccine was well tolerated in young children i

291 nant BALB/c mice immunized with subunit H1N1 influenza vaccine, we demonstrate the advantage of skin

292 MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccines were licensed for human vaccination,

293 of the more immunogenic high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine with a standard-dose vaccine to identi

294 the EB66 cell line to produce an immunogenic influenza vaccine with acceptable safety profile was dem

295 break necessitate the development of an anti-influenza vaccine with increased breadth of protection a

296 were randomized 1:1 to receive 2012 to 2013 influenza vaccine with or without MF59 adjuvant.

297 Head-to-head comparisons of conventional influenza vaccines with adenovirus (Ad) gene-based vacci

298 responses to 2 doses of an inactivated H7N9 influenza vaccine, with AS03-adjuvanted formulations ind

299 three monovalent components of the trivalent influenza vaccine, with boosted pre-existing clonotypes

300 Offering a choice of influenza vaccines, with reasonable resultant increases