TY - JOUR T1 - Intradermal versus Intramuscular Administration of Influenza Vaccination: Rapid Review and Meta-analysis JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.06.20205989 SP - 2020.10.06.20205989 AU - Oluwaseun Egunsola AU - Fiona Clement AU - John Taplin AU - Liza Mastikhina AU - Joyce W. Li AU - Diane L. Lorenzetti AU - Laura E. Dowsett AU - Tom Noseworthy Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/08/2020.10.06.20205989.abstract N2 - Background Vaccinations are essential for prevention of influenza. We synthesized the published literature on the immunogenicity and safety of the influenza vaccine at reduced or full intradermal doses compared with full intramuscular doses.Methods A rapid review of the literature was completed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies published from 2010 until June 5th, 2020. All studies comparing intradermal and intramuscular influenza vaccinations were included. Random-effects meta-analyses of immunogenicity and safety outcomes were conducted.Results A total of 30 relevant studies were included. Seroconversion rates were equivalent between the 3 mcg, 6 mcg, 7.5 mcg, and 9 mcg intradermal vaccine doses and the 15 mcg intramuscular vaccine dose for each of the H1N1, H3N2, and B strains, but significantly higher with the 15 mcg intradermal compared with the 15 mcg intramuscular dose, for the H1N1 (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.20) and B strains (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.13-1.73). Seroprotection rates for the 9 mcg and 15 mcg intradermal doses were equivalent with the 15 mcg intramuscular dose for all the three strains, except for the 15 mcg intradermal dose for the H1N1 strain which was significantly higher (RR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.09). Local adverse events were significantly higher with intradermal doses. Fever and chills were significantly higher with the 9 mcg intradermal dose, while all other systemic adverse events were equivalent for all doses.Conclusion Reduced dose intradermal influenza vaccination appears to be a reasonable alternative to standard dose intramuscular vaccination because of the similarity in immunogenicity.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis Project was supported with funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) under the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network initiative. The funders did not have any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article. ER -