ライフサイエンスコーパス: reactogenicity

1 dent viraemia occurred in concert with early reactogenicity.

2 vants display unacceptable local or systemic reactogenicity.

3 e expected to be devoid of local or systemic reactogenicity.

4 in combination with PF03512676 had enhanced reactogenicity.

5 llum assembly or motility, is sufficient for reactogenicity.

6 novel ways to increase dosage and to reduce reactogenicity.

7 man volunteers, suggesting a role for Hap in reactogenicity.

8 nt of V. cholerae culture may play a role in reactogenicity.

9 Reactogenicity after each dose and safety up to 1 year a

10 Vaccine virus replication and reactogenicity after monovalent Dengue virus vaccination

11 possible role for hemagglutinin/protease in reactogenicity, although other factors may also contribu

12 Reactogenicity and adverse events were monitored through

13 Reactogenicity and adverse events were monitored.

14 the vaccine, assessed as local and systemic reactogenicity and adverse events.

15 vaccines, as assessed by local and systemic reactogenicity and adverse events.

16 painless skin vaccination with reduced local reactogenicity and at least sustained immunogenicity.

17 Safety evaluations included solicited reactogenicity and coagulation parameters.

18 Reactogenicity and immune responses to cAd3-EBO vaccine

19 n-label trial in the United States evaluated reactogenicity and immunogenicity of 2 vaccination regim

20 In a prospective double-blind trial, the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of recombinant baculov

21 However, systemic reactogenicity and missed activities were significantly

22 Data on reactogenicity and other adverse events and blood and na

23 Reactogenicity and safety of QIV was consistent with TIV

24 Reactogenicity and safety were also assessed.

25 Regression models considered the outcomes of reactogenicity and seroconversion, controlling for all s

26 to the associated antigen without increased reactogenicity, and are currently being tested in Phase

27 This study assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of an injectable cell

28 The safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of the CCIV and the e

29 In this trial we compared the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of the vaccine antige

30 1 of 3 doses and were monitored for safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity.

31 Present vaccines are immunogenic, of low reactogenicity, and protective, but protection has varie

32 mpare vaccine candidates for immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and response to challenge; investigate t

33 Cellular immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety appeared to be comparable bet

34 r-blinded study assessed the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety of an inactivated, split-viri

35 HZ/su cellular immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety were also assessed.

36 Immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety were assessed.

37 ralizing antibodies; cell-mediated immunity; reactogenicity; and safety.

38 d heat-killed Shigella vaccines with minimal reactogenicity are the mutant toxin molecules.

39 The molecular bases of reactogenicity are unknown, but it has been speculated t

40 High reactogenicity associated with an increased dose of vCP1

41 well tolerated but was associated with more reactogenicity at the highest dose.

42 It displayed no reactogenicity at the site of injection, no tissue disea

43 olysin and MARTX toxin contribute to vaccine reactogenicity but that the genes for these toxins can b

44 We examined ways of reducing their reactogenicity by modifying lipid A, the endotoxic part

45 nt, causing increased serosal hemorrhage and reactogenicity compared to its parent.

46 We solicited symptoms of reactogenicity daily for 7 days after each vaccination a

47 , children received 1 dose of 2010/2011 TIV, reactogenicity data were collected for 7 days, and anoth

48 -1 was at high dose and all others were low; reactogenicity decreased with the incorporation of other

49 While reducing local reactogenicity, EPD of OVA/LPS/CpG and BCG vaccine gener

50 CFU, self-limited (<48-h duration) objective reactogenicity (fever, diarrhea, or dysentery) developed

51 Vaccine reactogenicity has complicated the development of safe a

52 In a blinded, placebo-controlled study, the reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and clinical efficacy of

53 though TIV was well tolerated in all groups, reactogenicity in children <5 years old was slightly gre

54 racts of mice and ferrets, and have very low reactogenicity in ferrets.

55 nt of safety, assessed as local and systemic reactogenicity in the 7 days after each vaccination and

56 irus, a vaccine candidate that retained mild reactogenicity in the upper respiratory tracts of 1-mont

57 genes from Vibrio cholerae induce a residual reactogenicity in up to 10% of vaccinees.

58 rimary series and yearly boosters and causes reactogenicity in up to 30% of vaccine recipients.

59 n attenuated vaccine candidate with residual reactogenicity in very young infants, namely, cpts248/40

60 unity without incurring any significant skin reactogenicity is urgently needed for cutaneous vaccinat

61 s reported fever; only 1 reported any severe reactogenicity (local pain/soreness, chills, arthralgia,

62 Reactogenicity occurred in 8 of 23 recipients of CVD 120

63 The highest reactogenicity occurred when DENV-1 was at high dose and

64 Similar clinical reactogenicity occurred with both vaccines.

65 We compared the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a fractional dose of IPV (one fifth of

66 An open study assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a heterologous booster dose of A/turke

67 vaccine and assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a subsequent dose of trivalent influen

68 r biology, clinical spectrum of illness, and reactogenicity of candidate live dengue virus vaccines o

69 We compared the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of Cervarix or Gardasil human papillomavi

70 protease that modulates the pathogenesis and reactogenicity of epidemic V. cholerae.

71 that a trxA mutation might be used to reduce reactogenicity of live attenuated vaccine strains.

72 enterotoxicity in rabbit ileal loops and the reactogenicity of live cholera vaccine candidates.

73 have mucinase activity and contribute to the reactogenicity of live vaccine candidates, but its role

74 Safety and reactogenicity of MenACWY were also assessed.

75 r clinical development can be limited by the reactogenicity of some of the most potent preclinical ad

76 The safety and reactogenicity of the 2 vaccines were assessed on the ba

77 result demonstrated that IL-1 contributed to reactogenicity of the rVSV, but was dispensable for indu

78 activity in vitro did not correlate with the reactogenicity of V. cholerae vaccine candidates.

79 study was to compare the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of vaccines delivered in either consisten

80 tro has been suggested to correlate with the reactogenicity of Vibrio cholerae vaccine candidates.

81 s, and solicited injection site and systemic reactogenicity on the day of study product administratio

82 No statistically significant differences in reactogenicity or immunogenicity were detected between s

83 Reactogenicity outcomes were proportions of injection si

84 fety data were collected including immediate reactogenicity, post-dosing toxicology ascertained 24 h

85 ar immune responses were correlated with the reactogenicity profile of subjects and did not differ be

86 The reactogenicity profile of TDV was acceptable, and simila

87 y relevant difference between the safety and reactogenicity profiles of the 2 vaccines.

88 of gE while retaining acceptable safety and reactogenicity profiles.

89 Treatment was well tolerated with reactogenicity rates similar to those seen in non-pregna

90 Reactogenicity rates were similar in LAIV and placebo re

91 At 3 x 10(5) pfu, early-onset reactogenicity remained frequent (45 [88%] of 51 compare

92 nses; however, balancing immunogenicity with reactogenicity remains problematic.

93 Reactogenicity solicited for 7 days, other safety events

94 The primary endpoints were safety and reactogenicity (take rate) of CCSV.

95 Here, we used an infant rabbit model of reactogenicity to determine what V. cholerae factors tri

96 Clinical reactogenicity was assessed, and state-of-the-art immuno

97 Reactogenicity was associated with adjuvant but not with

98 Mild-to-moderate early-onset reactogenicity was frequent but transient (median, 1 day

99 Reactogenicity was mild, transient, and most commonly re

100 Reactogenicity was minimal with doses of 5 x 10(10) vp o

101 containing 15, 45, or 135 microg of each HA, reactogenicity was minor.

102 Reactogenicity was monitored to day 7 and unsolicited ad

103 Transient local reactogenicity was more frequently seen at the higher do

104 Self-limited reactogenicity was observed after the initial immunizati

105 Self-limited reactogenicity was observed after the initial immunizati

106 More pronounced local reactogenicity was seen with the intradermal and subcuta

107 BCG was well tolerated, and reactogenicity was similar between groups, regardless of

108 Local and systemic reactogenicity was transient and self-limiting.

109 Solicited symptoms of reactogenicity were assessed, and all safety assessments

110 ustly activate newborn DCs but can result in reactogenicity when delivered in soluble form.

111 nistration of rBCG was associated with local reactogenicity, whereas intravenous and intradermal admi