These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Randomized, double-blind, phase III, pivotal field trial of the comparative immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of two yellow fever 17D vaccines (Arilvax and YF-VAX) in healthy infants and children in Peru.
    Author: Belmusto-Worn VE, Sanchez JL, McCarthy K, Nichols R, Bautista CT, Magill AJ, Pastor-Cauna G, Echevarria C, Laguna-Torres VA, Samame BK, Baldeon ME, Burans JP, Olson JG, Bedford P, Kitchener S, Monath TP.
    Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg; 2005 Feb; 72(2):189-97. PubMed ID: 15741556.
    Abstract:
    We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase III yellow fever (YF) vaccine trial among 1,107 healthy children in Sullana in northern Peru. The safety and efficacy (by measurement of geometric mean neutralizing antibody titer responses) were determined for two YF vaccines, ARILVAX (n = 738) and YF-VAX(R) (n = 369). Serocon-version rates were higher (94.9%) in ARILVAX than in YF-VAX (90.6%) recipients. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (YF-VAX-ARILVAX) was (-12.8% to -2.5%), indicating that the higher seroconversion rate for Arilvax was significant. Post-vaccination (30-day) mean log(10) neutralization indices were found to be similar for both products: 1.32 for ARILVAX and 1.26 for YF-VAX (P = 0.1404, by analysis of variance). A similar number of subjects in each group reported at least one adverse event (AE); 441 (59.8%) for ARILVAX versus 211 (59.9%) for YF-VAX. Most (591; 96.7%) of these were of a mild nature and resolved without treatment. There were no treatment-related serious AEs. This is the first randomized, double-blind comparison of two YF vaccines in a pediatric population; both vaccines were shown to be highly immunogenic and well-tolerated.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]