Advertisement

Advances in Therapy

, 28:640 | Cite as

Acceptance of Intanza® 9 μg intradermal influenza vaccine in routine clinical practice in Australia and Argentina

  • Peter Eizenberg
  • Robert Booy
  • Nadim Naser
  • Glen Mason
  • Daniel Stamboulian
  • Françoise WeberEmail author
Open Access
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

Intanza® 9 μg (Sanofi Pasteur SA, Lyon, France), a split virion trivalent influenza vaccine delivered by intradermal injection with a microinjection system, became available as a vaccination for adults aged 18 to 59 years old, as of the 2010 southern hemisphere influenza season.

Methods

This study was designed to assess the acceptability of intradermal vaccination with Intanza 9 μg in routine clinical practice by adult vaccinees and their prescribers. Prescribers and healthy adults 18 to 59 years old in Australia and Argentina who had elected to be vaccinated with Intanza 9 μg during the 2010 southern hemisphere influenza season were recruited to complete surveys about their opinions of influenza vaccination and acceptance of the intradermal vaccination.

Results

1402 vaccinees and 30 prescribers in Australia, and 264 vaccinees and 16 prescribers in Argentina responded to surveys. In both countries, 98% of vaccinees were satisfied or very satisfied with Intanza 9 μg. The main reasons for satisfaction were that the injection was considered minimally painful and that the vaccination was quickly administered. Most (95%) vaccinees reported that they would prefer to receive the same vaccination next year. Furthermore, 85% of prescribers were satisfied or very satisfied with the intradermal vaccine.

Conclusion

Intradermal vaccination for seasonal influenza using Intanza 9 μg is well accepted both by adult vaccinees and prescribers. By providing an additional, well-accepted method, Intanza 9 μg might help increase seasonal influenza vaccination rates in adults.

Keywords

acceptability influenza intradermal seasonal trivalent inactivated vaccine 

References

  1. 1.
    Tosh PK, Jacobson RM, Poland GA. Influenza vaccines: from surveillance through production to protection. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:257–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker WH, Mullooly JP. Pneumonia and influenza deaths during epidemics: implications for prevention. Arch Intern Med. 1982;142:85–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blank PR, Schwenkglenks M, Szucs TD. Vaccination coverage rates in eleven European countries during two consecutive influenza seasons. J Infect. 2009;58:446–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prausnitz MR, Mikszta JA, Cormier M, et al. Microneedle-based vaccines. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2009;333:369–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laurent PE, Bonnet S, Alchas P, et al. Evaluation of the clinical performance of a new intradermal vaccine administration technique and associated delivery system. Vaccine. 2007;25:8833–8842.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atmar RL, Patel SM, Keitel WA. Intanza intradermal vaccine for seasonal influenza. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2010;9:1399–1409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arnou R, Icardi G, De Decker M, et al. Intradermal influenza vaccine for older adults: a randomized controlled multicenter phase III study. Vaccine. 2009;27:7304–7312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Medicines Agency. Assessment report for Intanza Agency; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reygrobellet C, Viala-Danten M, Meunier J, et al. Perception and acceptance of intradermal influenza vaccination: patient reported outcomes from phase 3 clinical trials. Hum Vaccin. 2010;6:336–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jabbal-Gill I. Nasal vaccine innovation. J Drug Target. 2010;18:771–786.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kweon MN. Sublingual mucosa: a new vaccination route for systemic and mucosal immunity. Cytokine. 2011;54:1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicolas JF, Guy B. Intradermal, epidermal and transcutaneous vaccination: from immunology to clinical practice. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2008;7:1201–1214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Madjid M, Alfred A, Sahai A, et al. Factors contributing to suboptimal vaccination against influenza: results of a nationwide telephone survey of persons with cardiovascular disease. Tex Heart Inst J. 2009;36:546–552.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kroneman MW, van Essen GA. Stagnating influenza vaccine coverage rates among highrisk groups in Poland and Sweden in 2003/4 and 2004/5. Euro Surveill. 2007;12:E1–E2.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Eizenberg
    • 1
  • Robert Booy
    • 2
  • Nadim Naser
    • 3
  • Glen Mason
    • 3
  • Daniel Stamboulian
    • 4
  • Françoise Weber
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.North East Valley Division of General PracticeMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable DiseaseThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Sanofi PasteurSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Fundación del Centro de Estudios Infectológicos (FUNCEI)Buenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Sanofi PasteurLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations