Science News

... from universities, journals, and other research organizations

Changing Dosing, Administration Of Anthrax Vaccine Reduces Side Effects

ScienceDaily (Sep. 30, 2008) — Reducing the number of doses of an anthrax vaccine and changing its administration to intramuscular injection resulted in comparable measures of effectiveness but with fewer adverse events, according to a study in the October 1 issue of JAMA.

"Simpler and better tolerated regimens for vaccination with anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) are needed," the authors write. The licensed AVA vaccination regimen is administered by injection below the skin (subcutaneously) at 0, 2, and 4 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months, with annual boosters thereafter. Data supporting this regimen are limited.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, in collaboration with several U.S. clinical study sites and the Anthrax Vaccine Research Program Working Group, conducted a randomized clinical trial, which included 1,005 enrollees, to assess safety and serological outcomes of alternative schedules and routes of administration of AVA. Participants received AVA by the subcutaneous (SQ) or intramuscular (IM) route at 0, 2 and 4 weeks and 6 months (4-SQ or 4-IM; n = 165-170 per group) or at a reduced 3-dose schedule (3-IM; n = 501). A control group (n = 169) received saline injections at the same time intervals.

The researchers found that at month 7, after completion of the priming series (1st four injections), all groups had serum antibody responses that were "noninferior to" (i.e., no less than) the licensed regimen. Most injection site adverse events (AEs), such as warmth, tenderness, itching, abnormal redness of the skin and swelling, occurred at lower proportions in the 4-IM group compared with the 4-SQ group. The odds ratio for ordinal pain (response ranging from no pain to extreme pain) reported immediately after injection was reduced by 50 percent for the 4-IM vs. 4-SQ groups.

"Our data demonstrate that a 3-IM regimen (omission of the week 2 dose) elicits serum antibody responses at month 7 that are noninferior when compared with regimens containing 4 doses of AVA (SQ or IM). Intramuscular administration was associated with a significant reduction in injection site AEs. Changing the injection route from SQ to IM may increase vaccine acceptability. Reducing the number of doses in the AVA regimen would have the added benefit of increasing the number of doses available for prophylactic use," the authors conclude.

Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:

Other bookmarking and sharing tools:

| More

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by JAMA and Archives Journals.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. Marano et al. Effects of a Reduced Dose Schedule and Intramuscular Administration of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed on Immunogenicity and Safety at 7 Months: A Randomized Trial. JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 300 (13): 1532 DOI: 10.1001/jama.300.13.1532
APA

MLA

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 114,717

Find with keyword(s):
 
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily's archives for related news topics,
the latest news stories, reference articles, science videos, images, and books.

 
  more breaking science news

Social Networks


Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:
Other bookmarking and sharing tools:
| More

Breaking News

... from NewsDaily.com

In Other News ...

Copyright Reuters 2008. See Restrictions.

Free Subscriptions

... from ScienceDaily

Get the latest science news with our free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Feedback

... we want to hear from you!

Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?

 
Post this page to your favorite social bookmarking site:
close
Include this item in your blog or web site:
close
Cite this article in your essay, paper, or report:
close
Email this page's link to a friend or colleague:
close