Safety and effectiveness of dose-sparing strategies for seasonal influenza vaccine ================================================================================== * Jesmin Antony * Patricia Rios * Chantal Williams * Naveeta Ramkissoon * Sharon E. Straus * Andrea C. Tricco ## ABSTRACT **Background** The objective of this rapid scoping review was to identify potentially safe and effective dose-sparing strategies for intramuscular administration of seasonal influenza vaccines in healthy individuals of all ages. **Methods** Comprehensive literature searches were developed and executed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library, and grey literature was searched via international clinical trial registries for relevant studies published in English in the last 20 years. References of relevant systematic reviews and included studies were also scanned. Title/abstract and full-text screening were carried out by pairs of reviewers independently and data charting conducted by a single reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Results were presented narratively. **Results** A total of 13 studies with 10,351 participants were included in the review and all studies were randomized control trials conducted between 2006 and 2019. The most common interventions were the trivalent influenza vaccine (n=10), followed by quadrivalent influenza vaccine (n=4). Nine studies included infants/toddlers 6-36 months old and one of these studies also included children and adolescents. In these nine studies, no clinical effectiveness outcomes were reported and no difference was found in local and systemic reactogenicity between dosing strategies. Of the four adult studies (≥ 18 years), the two studies that reported on effectiveness outcomes found similar results between the half-dose and full-dose vaccination groups and all four studies reported no differences in safety outcomes between groups. **Conclusion** The current evidence for the administration of intramuscular influenza vaccines suggests there is no significant difference in safety and clinical effectiveness with the use of low-dose compared to full-dose vaccines, which is promising given the predicted resource constraints in the upcoming influenza season due to the 2019 novel coronavirus. Due to the low number of studies in adults and the lack of studies assessing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness, there remains a need for further evaluation. **PURPOSE** The Centre for Immunization and Respiratory Infectious Diseases of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) submitted a query regarding the safety and effectiveness of fractional dosing of seasonal influenza vaccines through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN). They requested that the DSEN Methods and Application Group in Indirect Comparisons (MAGIC) conduct a rapid review on this topic with an approximate 6-week timeline. The overall objective of this rapid review was to identify potentially safe and effective dose-sparing strategies for administration of seasonal influenza vaccines in healthy individuals of all ages that have been evaluated in human trials. In order to limit the scope of the work and ensure the rapid timeline could be met, this review focused only on intramuscular vaccine formulations, thus the research question was as follows: 1. What is the safety and effectiveness of using fractional dosing strategies to deliver intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccines? ## METHODS ### Protocol The methods for this review were guided by the updated reviewer manual published by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the World Health Organization’s guide to rapid evidence synthesis.1, 2 Results are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).3 A protocol for this rapid review was published on the Open Science Framework registry ([https://osf.io/8mwz2/](https://osf.io/8mwz2/)). ### Literature search Comprehensive literature searches were developed and executed in MEDLINE (available in Appendix A), EMBASE, and the Cochrane library, and grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was searched via international clinical trial registries. References of relevant systematic reviews and included studies were also scanned. ### Eligibility criteria The eligibility criteria followed the PICOST framework: * Population: Healthy humans of any age. Immunocompromised populations and animal studies were excluded. * Intervention: Any dose-sparing strategy used to administer intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccines (vaccines of interest listed in Appendix B). Eligible strategies include, but were not limited to, administrating less than the standard 15 ug HA antigen using multi-dose vials, half dosing, or pre-formulated products with reduced antigen quantity, or using revised vaccine schedules to distribute doses. Any studies examining monovalent pandemic vaccines, specialty/experimental vaccines (e.g., high dose), whole virus vaccines, or other routes of administration (e.g. intranasal, intradermal) were not eligible. Only vaccine products approved for use in Canada or equivalent formulations approved for use in other countries were eligible for inclusion. Concomitant administration with other vaccine products were included only if administered to both the intervention and the comparator groups. * Comparator: Any of the interventions listed above, no intervention, or placebo. * Outcomes: Lab-confirmed influenza infection (primary outcome), influenza-like illness or clinical/symptomatic diagnosis of influenza, hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, mortality, and adverse events (local/systemic reactogenicity, vascular-related, serious). * Study designs: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), NRCTs (e.g., such as quasi-RCTs, non-randomized trials, interrupted time series, controlled before after), and observational studies (e.g., cohort, case control) were included. Studies must have a control or comparator in order to be eligible for inclusion and as such, cross-sectional, case series, case reports, and qualitative studies were excluded. * Time periods: Only studies published in the past 20 years (2000-2020) were included. Inclusion was also limited to studies written in the English language only due to the short timelines for this review. ### Study selection A screening form based on the eligibility criteria was prepared and pilot-tested with all members of the review team until sufficient agreement (>75%) was reached prior to both title/abstract (level 1) and full-text (level 2) screening. Subsequent screening at level 1 and level 2 were completed by pairs of reviewers working independently using the Knowledge Translation Program’s proprietary screening software (synthesi.SR).4 Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by a third independent reviewer. ### Data items and charting process Items for data collection included study characteristics (e.g., study design, year of publication, country of conduct, multi-center vs. single site), patient characteristics (e.g., mean age, age range, sex, vaccination history), intervention details (e.g., type of vaccine, vaccine manufacturer, dose, timing an administration of treatment), comparator details (e.g., comparator intervention, dose), and outcome results (e.g., influenza infections, hospitalizations, adverse events, mortality) at the longest duration of follow-up. Immunogenicity outcomes were not abstracted, but these studies were flagged for PHAC. A standardized form for data charting was developed and pilot tested by the entire review team using 2 full-text articles to ensure congruence among reviewers. All included studies were charted by one reviewer and then verified by a second reviewer working independently. ## RESULTS ### Literature search We screened 2378 titles and abstracts from our database search and an additional 13 citations located through searching the grey literature and scanning references. Of these, 144 potentially relevant full-text articles were screened for eligibility and data from 13 relevant studies were abstracted. Five trial protocols related to these 13 full-text articles were also captured in our search and have been denoted as companion reports (Figure 1). Twelve studies that assessed dose-sparing strategies were excluded during full-text screening because the vaccine under study was not of interest or unclear. We contacted authors of the unclear studies and received 1 response confirming the vaccine was not of interest. These 12 studies are listed in Appendix C. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/F1) Figure 1: Study Flow Diagram ### Study characteristics Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the 13 included studies. All studies were randomized controlled trials conducted between 2006 and 2019; mainly in the US, followed by Mexico, Canada and Finland. The majority of the studies evaluated trivalent vaccines (77%) and most were conducted in the 6-36 month-old pediatric population (69%). Almost all studies reported on reactogenicity and/or adverse events, but only two studies reported on effectiveness outcomes of interest (i.e., confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/T1) Table 1: Summary of included studies Full study and patient characteristic details for each study are reported in Appendix C and treatment and outcome details in Appendix D. ### Studies including children (<18 years old) Nine studies included infants/toddlers 6-36 months old and one study also included children and adolescents (Table 2). None of these studies reported results on the effectiveness outcomes established a priori, however all of them reported on safety outcomes. Immunogenicity outcomes were also reported in all these studies and flagged for PHAC in Table 2. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/T2) Table 2: Nine RCTs conducted in children (6 months – 17 years) ### Safety outcomes #### Trivalent influenza vaccines Six of the included studies assessed trivalent influenza vaccines (TIV) in young children (6-36 months) and reported on local and systemic reactogenicity outcomes and adverse events.5-10 Two studies compared the administration of full- (0.5mL) and half- (0.25mL) doses of the same standard 15μg/strain vaccine.6, 10 The first RCT compared 2 full versus 2 half doses of TIV in previously unimmunized infants (6-11 months) and toddlers (12-23 months) using Vaxigrip (15μg/strain).6 The study found that in the infants group, 2 full 0.5-mL doses of vaccine did not increase reactogenicity. Local reactions were less common in infants than toddlers and more common with full doses versus half doses, but none of these differences were statistically significant. All adverse events reported in the study were deemed unlikely related to the vaccine. The second study, published in a clinical trial registry, compared a single intramuscular injection of 0.5mL to 0.25mL of FLUAD or Agrippal and showed comparable proportions of children with reactogenicity outcomes and AEs across the groups, but no significance levels or conclusions were provided by the investigators.10 The objective of three of the included trials was to examine the impact of administering the full adult dose of 15μg/strain vaccines compared with the usual children’s dose of 7.5μg/strain in infants and toddlers.7-9 A multicenter randomized trial was conducted in Canada assessing the safety of full-dose Fluviral TIV (15μg/strain) compared with the half-dose (7.5μg/strain) and an active comparator Vaxigrip (7.5μg/strain).7 Compared with the half-dose, the full-dose of the study vaccine resulted in clinically similar reactogenicity and safety. A similar three-arm randomized study to assess the use of Fluarix at two different dose levels (7.5μg/strain and 15μg/strain) compared to an established control vaccine Fluzone (7.5μg/strain) also found the reactogenicity and safety profile of Fluarix did not appear to be affected by doubling the dose, but one participant in the 15μg group had two SAEs (apnea and cyanosis) that were considered by the investigator to be possibly related to vaccination.8 A third multicenter trial compared the 15 μg/strain formulation to the 7.5μg/strain formulation of Fluzone (Sanofi Pasteur) administered to young children across multiple influenza seasons.9 This study also found no statistically significant differences between the full-dose or half-dose groups for systemic reactions, local reactions or adverse events when both seasons were combined; however, in the 2011–2012 season, 8 of 48 (16.7%) participants in the half-dose group compared with 32 of 96 (33.3%) in the full-dose group had increased redness at the injection site (P < .05). Cioppa et al. (2009) was the only trial that compared the safety and tolerability of both TIV and QIV vaccine formulations.5 The vaccine arms of interest were a QIV 15-μg/strain, TIV 15-μg/strain, QIV 7.5-μg/strain, TIV 7.5-μg/strain, and a control Vaxigrip TIV 7.5-μg/strain vaccine. Reactogenicity of the 7.5-μg TIV/QIV formulations was slightly lower than for the corresponding 15-μg formulations, but there was no difference in reactogenicity between TIV and QIV vaccines. #### Quadrivalent influenza vaccines Four of the included studies evaluated quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV) in children.5, 11-13All of the studies reported reactogenicity outcomes and adverse events. One study reported both TIV and QIV vaccines and the results are reported above.5 Two studies compared full-dose QIV to pediatric 7.5μg/strain Fluzone. In the first trial, full dose Fluzone had a similar safety profile to half-dose Fluzone with a single adverse event being attributed to the study vaccine.13 Similarly, the second study found that full-dose Flulaval may improve protection against influenza in some young children when compared to low-dose Fluzone, and in this trial none of the adverse events were considered to be study-related by the investigator.11 The final trial evaluated Vaxigrip Tetra (15μg/strain) administered to children and adolescents in two different formats.12 Vaxigrip administered as a single dose using a pre-filled syringe (PFS) was compared to a 10-dose multi-dose vial (MDV). Systemic reactions were reported in more infants aged 6 − 35 months in the MDV group than in the PFS group, however this difference was not clinically significant. The authors concluded that there was no difference in reactogenicity or safety between the two vaccine formats in infants, children, and adolescents. ### Studies including adults (≥18 years old) One study included adults over 18 years, 2 studies included adults from18-45 and 18-65 years old, and 1 study included older adults (≥ 65 years) (Table 3). Two studies reported on effectiveness outcomes and three on reactogenicity and adverse events. Immunogenicity outcomes were also reported in 3 studies and flagged for PHAC in Table 3. All 4 trials evaluated Fluzone QIV. View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/T3) Table 3: Four RCTs conducted in adults (≥18 years old) ### Effectiveness outcomes Two of the included studies that examined the same vaccine (Fluzone manufactured by Aventis Pasteur) in adult populations reported effectiveness outcomes including lab-confirmed influenza infections, influenza like illness, and/or hospitalizations or emergency room visits after vaccination.14, 15 The study by Kramer et al. (2006) found that 3.6% of participants receiving a 15-μg/strain dose of vaccine reported influenza like illness compared to 6.8% of participants that received a 7.5-μg/strain dose.14 However, only one participant in the study that received the 15-μg/strain dose was confirmed via laboratory analysis to have influenza. The authors concluded that half-dose and full-dose vaccinations appear to be similarly effective based on the low rate of influenza infections and similar symptom surveys between both groups but acknowledge that further studies examining immunogenicity are needed to confirm. A similar study by Engler et al. (2008) that compared a 15-μg/strain dose of Fluzone vaccine to a 7.5-μg/strain dose found equal proportions of participants reporting influenza like illness (9.7% vs 9.9%) and hospitalizations or emergency room visits (0.3% v 0.2%).15 The study authors found the relative risk of medical visits or hospitalizations between both groups was the same even when adjusting for age and that age, sex, nor dose had an influence on the severity of influenza like illness symptoms. ### Safety outcomes Three of the included studies in adult populations reported adverse events that occurred during the trial while one study indicated that no adverse events were recorded for the duration of their trial.14-17 All three studies reporting adverse events compared different doses of Fluzone vaccine including 3-μg, 6-μg, 7.5-μg, 9-μg, and 15-μg per strain doses. Two of the studies were carried out in adult populations and one study was conducted in older adults (>60 years of age).15-17 One study found that joint or muscle pain following vaccination was statistically significantly higher in the full dose (15-μg) group compared to the half-dose (7.5-μg) group and that while injection site pain initially appeared to be statistically significantly higher in the full dose group, when adjusted to include only clinically significant pain levels (>3 out of 5 on a visual analogue scale) the difference was no longer statistically significant.15 The study found no differences in occurrence or severity of any other adverse effects. Similarly, one study comparing four different doses of Fluzone (3-μg, 6-μg, 9-μg, and 15-μg per strain) did not report any differences between the IM vaccination groups. .16 Finally, the study in older adults also found no difference in the occurrence or severity of adverse events in the low dose (9-μg) versus high dose (15-μg) group and found no serious adverse events that were considered related to the vaccine.17 ## DISCUSSION PHAC commissioned this review to identify potentially safe and effective dose-sparing strategies for intramuscular administration of seasonal influenza vaccines in healthy individuals of all ages that have been evaluated in human trials. Thirteen randomized controlled trials published between 2006 and 2019 comparing standard/full-dose and half/low-dose vaccines were included in this scoping review after a comprehensive search of the electronic databases, trial registries and references of relevant systematic reviews. The majority of the included studies were conducted in children and evaluated trivalent influenza vaccines (TIV). In young children, there were no effectiveness outcomes of interest reported, but local reactogenicity, systemic reactogenicity and adverse events were comparable across the full-dose and half-dose TIV and QIV vaccine arms. In addition, the authors of one study in children and adolescents that compared full-dose QIV using pre-filled syringes (PFS) versus multi-dose vials (MDV) also found no statistically significant differences in safety outcomes between administration formats, suggesting MDV QIV may be a viable alternative format for seasonal influenza vaccination. In adults (including older adults), half-dose QIV was considered equally effective as high-dose in the two studies that assessed clinical effectiveness and safety profiles were similar across groups in all 4 studies. This rapid scoping review was conducted within a 6-week timeline and the methods were tailored to provide preliminary results to the stakeholders within 4 weeks. We limited the search by date (past 20 years) and language (English), and data charting was conducted by one abstractor and one verifier. In the initial project plan, we outlined that the literature search would be limited to the last 10 years and screening of abstracts and full-texts would be done by a single reviewer, however given the manageable search output we expanded the search to the last 20 years and all screening was completed in duplicate. Also due to the timeline, we limited the number of outcomes of interest. Further exploration of the immunogenicity of the vaccines is warranted, as we did not abstract these results due to the rapid nature of this review. Finally, some dose-sparing studies were not included in the report because they did not include vaccines that were deemed of interest to the stakeholder or the vaccine was unclear. These 12 studies are listed in Appendix C and we have followed-up with the authors of the unclear studies. Given the size of this review, inclusion of these additional studies may impact the results. ## CONCLUSION Overall there seems to be no significant difference in safety or clinical effectiveness outcomes with the use of low-dose compared to full-dose influenza vaccines, which is promising given the predicted resource constraints in the upcoming influenza season due to the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). However, due to the low number of studies in adults and the lack of studies assessing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness, there remains a need for further evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of IM dose-sparing strategies using vaccines currently available in this population. Future research should focus on a systematic review with meta-analysis to confirm the validity of the evidence presented in this rapid scoping review. ## Data Availability All datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article. ## Copyright claims/Disclaimers The intellectual property rights in data and results generated from the work reported in this document are held in joint ownership between the MAGIC team and the named Contributors. Users are permitted to disseminate the data and results presented in this report provided that the dissemination (i) does not misrepresent the data, results, analyses or conclusions, and (ii) is consistent with academic practice, the rights of any third party publisher, and applicable laws. Any dissemination of the data and results from this document shall properly acknowledge the MAGIC team and named Contributors. ## Funding Statement This work was supported through the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. ACT is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis and SES is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation. ## Acknowledgements Jessie McGowan (literature search development), Tamara Radar (PRESS of literature search), Alissa Epworth (literature search execution and full-text retrieval), Navjot Mann (author contact and report preparation). ## APPENDIX A MEDLINE search strategy **Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL <1946 to May 29, 2020> Search Strategy:** View this table: [Table4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/T4) ## APPENDIX B List of eligible vaccines View this table: [Table5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/T5) ## APPENDIX C Excluded dose-sparing studies View this table: [Table6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/T6) ## APPENDIX D Study and patient data View this table: [Table7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/T7) ## APPENDIX E Treatment and outcome data View this table: [Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20163717/T8) ## Footnotes * For questions about this report, please contact: Andrea Tricco, MSc, PhD, NPI, MAGIC Team, Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Director, Knowledge Synthesis Team, Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada, Email: Andrea.Tricco{at}unityhealth.to, Phone: 416-864-6060 ext. 77521 * Received July 31, 2020. * Revision received July 31, 2020. * Accepted August 4, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. 1.Aromataris E MZE. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: JBI; 2020. Available from: [https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL](https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL). 2. 2.World Health Organization AfHPaSR. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide 2017. Available from: [https://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/publications/rapid-review-guide/en/](https://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/publications/rapid-review-guide/en/). 3. 3.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M18-0850&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30178033&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F04%2F2020.07.31.20163717.atom) 4. 4.Synthesi. SR. Toronto, Canada: Knowledge Translation Program, St. Michael’s Hospital; 2012. 5. 5.Della Cioppa G, Vesikari T, Sokal E, Lindert K, Nicolay U. Trivalent and quadrivalent MF59®-adjuvanted influenza vaccine in young children: a dose-and schedule-finding study. Vaccine. 2011;29(47):8696–704. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.08.111&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21906647&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F04%2F2020.07.31.20163717.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000297037400032&link_type=ISI) 6. 6.Skowronski DM, Hottes TS, Chong M, De Serres G, Scheifele DW, Ward BJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial of dose response to influenza vaccine in children aged 6 to 23 months. Pediatrics. 2011;128(2):e276–89. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6InBlZGlhdHJpY3MiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjEyOC8yL2UyNzYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wOC8wNC8yMDIwLjA3LjMxLjIwMTYzNzE3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 7. 7.Langley JM, Vanderkooi OG, Garfield HA, Hebert J, Chandrasekaran V, Jain VK, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of 2 dose levels of a thimerosal-free trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in children aged 6–35 months: a randomized, controlled trial. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2012;1(1):55–63. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jpids/pis012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23687572&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F04%2F2020.07.31.20163717.atom) 8. 8.Pavia-Ruz N,Angel Rodriguez Weber M, Lau Y-L, Nelson EAS, Kerdpanich A, Huang L-M, et al. A randomized controlled study to evaluate the immunogenicity of a trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine at two dosages in children 6 to 35 months of age. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(9):1978–88. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4161/hv.25363&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23782962&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F04%2F2020.07.31.20163717.atom) 9. 9.Halasa NB, Gerber MA, Berry AA, Anderson EL, Winokur P, Keyserling H, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of full-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) compared with half-dose TIV administered to children 6 through 35 months of age. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2015;4(3):214–24. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jpids/piu061&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26334249&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F04%2F2020.07.31.20163717.atom) 10. 10.Clinical Trial Results: A Phase IIIB, observer-blind, randomized, parallel groups, extension study to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety following a single intramuscular dose of FLUAD or Agrippal S1 influenza vaccines in healthy children previously vaccinated in the V70P5 study. [Internet]. 2016 [cited July 6, 2020]. Available from: [https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2010-021644-18/results](https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2010-021644-18/results). 11. 11.Jain VK, Domachowske JB, Wang L, Ofori-Anyinam O, Rodríguez-Weber MA, Leonardi ML, et al. Time to change dosing of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine in young children: evidence from a phase III, randomized, controlled trial. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2017;6(1):9–19. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jpids/piw068&link_type=DOI) 12. 12.Ojeda J, Arredondo JL, Salcedo P, Paredes-Paredes M, Dupuy M, Petit C, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a multi-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in individuals aged 6 months to 17 years: a randomized phase III trial. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019:1–5. 13. 13.Robertson CA, Mercer M, Selmani A, Klein NP, Jeanfreau R, Greenberg DP. Safety and Immunogenicity of a Full-dose, Split-virion, Inactivated, Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Healthy Children 6-35 Months of Age: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019;38(3):323–8. 14. 14.Kramer JS, Durham C, Schroeder T, Garrelts JC. Effectiveness of half-dose versus full-dose influenza vaccine in health care workers. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;63(21):2111–5. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpocCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiNjMvMjEvMjExMSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzA0LzIwMjAuMDcuMzEuMjAxNjM3MTcuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 15. 15.Engler RJ, Nelson MR, Klote MM, VanRaden MJ, Huang CY, Cox NJ, et al. Half-vs full-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (2004-2005): age, dose, and sex effects on immune responses. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(22):2405–14. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinternmed.2008.513&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19064822&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F04%2F2020.07.31.20163717.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261486600004&link_type=ISI) 16. 16.Belshe RB, Newman FK, Wilkins K, Graham IL, Babusis E, Ewell M, et al. Comparative immunogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine administered by intradermal or intramuscular route in healthy adults. Vaccine. 2007;25(37-38):6755–63. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.06.066&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17692438&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F04%2F2020.07.31.20163717.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000249850300012&link_type=ISI) 17. 17.Chi RC, Rock MT, Neuzil KM. Immunogenicity and safety of intradermal influenza vaccination in healthy older adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(10):1331–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/652144&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20377407&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F04%2F2020.07.31.20163717.atom)