Search

• The trial vaccine was safe in subjects ≥ 3 years. • The immunogenicity of trial vaccine was non-inferior to the comparator in ≥ 3 years subjects. • Two-dose vaccine series with the trial vaccine is safe and can trigger a stronger immune response than that of one-dose in 3–8 years subjects. Subunit influenza vaccine only formulated with surface antigen proteins has better safety profiles relative to split-virion influenza vaccine. Compared to the traditional quadrivalent split-virion influenza vaccine, a novel quadrivalent subunit influenza vaccine is urgently needed in China. We completed a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority clinical study at two sites in Henan Province, China. Eligible volunteers were split into four age cohorts (3–8 years, 9–17 years, 18–64 years, and ≥ 65 years, based on their dates of birth) and randomly assigned (1:1) to the subunit and the split-virion ecNAIIV4 groups. All volunteers were intramuscularly administered a single vaccine dose at baseline, and children aged 3–8 years received a boosting dose at day 28. And the immune response was evaluated by measuring hemagglutinin-inhibition antibody titers against the four vaccine strains in blood samples. Safety profiles had nonsignificant differences between the study groups in ≥ 3 years cohort. Most adverse reactions post-vaccination, both local and systemic, were mild to moderate and resolved within 3 days. And no serious adverse events occurred. The immunogenicity of the trial vaccine was non-inferior to the comparator. Further, a two-dose vaccine series can provide better seroprotection than that of a one-dose series in children aged 3–8 years, with clinically acceptable safety profiles. Clinical Trials Registration. ChiCTR2100049934. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to report the long-term outcomes of proximal thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection (cTBAD)., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 48 cases of patients with cTBAD who underwent proximal TEVAR in Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University from January 2010 to September 2013. The preoperative and postoperative imaging examinations, overall survival rate, aortic-related survival rate, and freedom from reintervention rate data were collected to evaluate aortic remodeling and clinical outcomes. The enrolled patients received follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following treatment and annually thereafter., Results: A total of 48 patients (mean age, 58.3 ± 10.6 years; men:women, 40:8) were included, of which 38 cases (79.2%) were uncomplicated dissection and 10 cases (20.8%) were complicated. The mean follow-up time was 48.7 ± 40 months (1-120 months). The mean time interval from the initial procedure to reintervention was 50.6 ± 32.7 months (11-98 months). The following changes were observed at preoperative versus last follow-up timepoints. Descending aortic level: true lumen, 19.2 ± 7.01 mm vs. 36.9 ± 9.53 mm ( p < 0.001); false lumen, 30.47 ± 15.89 mm vs. 19.16 ± 15.33 mm ( p < 0.001); maximum diameter, 49.67 ± 13.96 mm vs. 56.66 ± 14.95 mm ( p = 0.018). Diaphragm level: true lumen, 16.24 ± 5.41 mm vs. 24.41 ± 8.04 mm ( p < 0.001); false lumen, 12.37 ± 11.49 mm vs. 14.92 ± 12.25 mm ( p = 0.196); and maximum diameter, 34 ± 7.81 mm vs. 38.04 ± 7.7 mm ( p < 0.001). The freedom from reintervention rate was 81% in 5 years and 50.6% in 10 years. The overall 10-years survival rate was 83% (6 of 48), and the aortic-related survival rate was 92.3% (3 of 48)., Conclusions: TEVAR is a safe and effective proximal repair intervention for cTBAD that can reliably induce the positive remodeling of the descending aorta., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.