ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of Canada split influenza virus vaccine.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Cluster samples were by randomly chosen and divided into split vaccination group and homoimported influenza vaccination group.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>After injection, fever-reaction and local reaction rates of 'trial' group were found as 3.69% and 1.75% respectively, but no statistical significance was found when compared with 'control' group. However the antibody positive rates of 'trail' and 'control' groupsappeared statistically significant (H1N1: 96.8% vs. 92.3%, H3N2: 95.8% vs. 90.2%, B: 52.3% vs. 62.3%). For geometric mean titer (GMT) of type H1N1, H3H2 and B antibody, 'trial' group and 'control' group increased 22.4, 16.8, 8.2 and 21.2, 12.5 and 7.4 times respectively. The antibody protective rates of type H1N1, H3N2 and B were 99%, 99% and 53.9% for 'trial' group, and 96.2%, 98.4% and 62.3% for 'control' but with no statistically significant difference.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Influenza split vaccine made in Shire company in Canada was safe and with good immunogenicity.</p>
Subject(s)
Adolescent , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Age Factors , Antibody Formation , Allergy and Immunology , Canada , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Allergy and Immunology , Injections , Orthomyxoviridae , Allergy and Immunology , Time Factors , Viral Vaccines , Allergy and ImmunologyABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To understand the risk factors on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) among their contacts and to develop effective strategy for its control.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Available epidemiological data of SARS cases and close contacts were reviewed and analyzed by SPSS.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Out of the 2195 close contacts, 138 (6.3%) were diagnosed as SARS. Among colleagues and classmates of SARS patients, the infection rate was 0.36% versus 31.71% in contacts among families and hospitals, 0.77% in schools. No one was infected among 459 close contacts to SARS in the working unit.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Among close contacts, factors that facilitating transmission would include: time, extent, frequency and place of contact to the patients, as well as factors related to close contacts as way, time of isolation and age. One of the epidemiological characteristics was that SARS were as clustered in the family among those close contacts. It is important to control the spread of SARS through supervision on the close contacts to patients.</p>