View clinical trials related to Influenza, Human.
Filter by:This Phase 2, randomized, observer-blind, active controlled clinical study is evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of the investigational MF59-Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Subunit Inactivated Influenza Vaccine. Approximately 480 subjects are to be randomized into 1 of 4 possible treatment groups (investigational Influenza Vaccine or licensed Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine comparators) at 120 participants per group. Every participant will receive an influenza vaccine injection on Day 1 and will be followed up for approximately 6 months following injection. The primary immunogenicity analysis is based on Day 29 serum.
This study uses a prospective cohort design to investigate if the seasonal influenza vaccine is equally effective when given early and late before the proceeding influenza season. All health care workers will be vaccinated for seasonal influenza either 3 months before or 1 month prior to the start of the influenza season. HCWs that consent to take part in the study will have 4 blood samples taken for an antibody check. The initial antibody checks will be done just prior to vaccination as well as 2 weeks after vaccination. Subsequent samples will be taken at the peak of influenza season and at the end of the influenza season. HCWs that develop ILI during the course of the influenza season will be asked to complete a questionnaire and oropharyngeal self-swab. HCWs will also provide exhaled breath samples and wear a mask in order to evaluate novel non-invasive methods for diagnosis of influenza. Influenza positive and negative inpatients identified through the University of Leicester's laboratory system will also be asked to provide breath samples to evaluate this technique for the diagnosis of influenza.
Influenza virus has high morbidity rates during annual epidemics, with certain high-risk groups being particularly susceptible to complications and mortality. Vaccination is the main prevention measure, alongside with hygiene measures. Nevertheless, vaccine coverage remains low. Some studies suggest that short, standardized interventions can improve coverage of several vaccines. Hypothesis: Brief Intervention is an effective tool in improving vaccination coverage in people who have initially rejected it. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a Brief Intervention in increasing influenza vaccination (IIV) coverage compared with the usual advice in people who refuse it. Method: cluster randomized clinical trial. The study population was individuals with high risk factors who initially refused the influenza vaccine. Professionals participants (doctors and nurses) were assigned randomly to the intervention group (brief intervention) and the control group (usual advice).
This research aims to identify which behavioral science strategies are most effective at increasing flu vaccination rates overall and based on patients' individual characteristics. Past behavioral science interventions have shown promise in increasing flu vaccinations. For example, successful interventions have encouraged people to make concrete plans for when they will get a flu vaccination (Milkman et al. 2011), sent automated calls or text messages reminding patients to get a flu vaccination (Cutrona et al. 2018; Regan et al. 2017), or provided financial incentives for getting vaccinated (Nowalk et al. 2010). Although these results are promising, these studies have been conducted in isolation on different populations, which makes it difficult to compare their interventions' effectiveness or to have enough power to reliably detect differing responses to interventions based on individual characteristics. This research will simultaneously test 19 different SMS interventions to increase flu vaccinations in a "mega-study" and apply machine learning to identify which interventions work best for whom. The interventions are designed by behavioral science experts from the Behavior Change for Good Initiative (BCFG), Penn Medicine Nudge Unit (PMNU), and Geisinger Behavioral Insights Team (BIT). We expect to include at least 80,000 participants. The specific aims of this research are to identify (1) which behavioral science strategies effectively increase flu vaccination rates overall, and (2) which strategies are most effective for different subgroups (e.g., based on age, gender, race).
Subjects will be recruited and divided into 3 groups: 1. Experimental Group (408 subjects): combined immunization of PPV23 and IIV4; 2. Control Group A (408 subjects): IIV4 only; 3. Control Group B (408 subjects): PPV23 only; All blood samples will be collected before and one month after vaccinatioin. The immunogenicity and safety of both experimental and control groups will be compared and the data be analyzed.
Primary Objective: To provide serum samples (collected from participants before vaccination [Blood Sample 1] and after final vaccination [Blood Sample 2]) to Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) for further analysis by the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support formulation recommendations for subsequent influenza vaccines. In addition, serum samples from adult participants may be further analyzed by the Sponsor to assess breadth of immune response induced by the study vaccines.
As part of the fight against COVID-19, the UK government has announced its most comprehensive flu campaign to date (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/most-comprehensive-flu-programme-in-uk-history-will-be-ro lled-out-this-winter). This should not be surpising: every year NHS hospitals experience an overwhelming number of influenza cases, and COVID-19 increases this concern. As in previous years, the flu vaccine is free at the point of care for people 65 and over. New this year is that later in the season the vaccine will be made available free at the point of care for people 50 and over. However, if people refuse to take the vaccine this comprehensive program cannot benefit public health. The degree to which vaccine hesitancy is expressed varies across characteristics of the vaccine considered and the time and place it is offered, and across characteristics of the person's perceptions of complacency, convenience, confidence, calculations, and communal responsibility, i.e. the "5Cs". Information campaigns can be used to influence all 5Cs, and public facing information is often a necessary component of public health campaigns that may also include structural components. Largely, information campaigns can be viewed as a type of educational intervention. Educational interventions may fall short of what is needed to alter people's intentions to vaccinate where they focus on system 1 rational thinking processes and neglect system 2 automatic thinking processes. To be more effective, public health messages must be tailored to align with the "beliefs, attitudes, and motivations" of the very people they intend to influence. Fact-led educational interventions to increase parents' intentions to vaccinate their children are particularly ineffective where more subtle content opposes the recipient's deep-seated values. In a different context, recycling behaviour, previous research demonstrated that messages aligned with people's deep-seated values (i.e. the moral foundations that underlie political ideologies) are more likely to promote desired behavioural intentions than unaligned messages. The present research expands the scope of previous research in two ways. First, rather than investigating parental attitudes towards vaccination, the investigators will look at people's intentions to self-vaccinate. Second, the investigators will explore the effectiveness of messages aligned with the moral foundations that underlie individual's political ideologies on their intentions to be vaccinated.
Primary Objective: Immunogenicity: To describe the immune response induced by high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) and AdimFlu-S (QIS) by hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) measurement method in all participants. Safety: To describe the safety profile of all participants in each study groups.
This trial is taking place in Los Angeles, CA among patients from primary care practices within the UCLA Health System. The study design is a 2x2x2 factorial design, nested in a parallel 2-arm trial. The parallel arms are control v. reminder letter (reminder messages sent via the patient portal, reminding participants of an overdue influenza vaccine) Nested within the reminder letter arm, we will have 3 additional components: - A direct scheduling link within the reminder letter enabling the patient to schedule an influenza vaccine only visit (direct scheduling link vs. no direct scheduling link). - A pre-commitment prompt (pre-commitment prompt vs. no prompt) asking about a patient's intention to get the influenza vaccination - A pre-appointment reminder, encouraging patients to ask for their influenza vaccine at their upcoming appointment (pre-appointment reminder encouraging influenza vaccination vs. standard pre-appointment reminder not mentioning influenza vaccination)
This is a sub-study of a 5-year study designed to investigate how antibody and T cell responses following influenza vaccine compare among lung transplant patients, patients waiting for lung transplantation, and healthy individuals. This prospective, parallel study was done to investigate the responses to influenza vaccine in consecutive years.