Influenza VaccinationPhase 4FlushedNCT03104790
Assessment of Viral Shedding in Children Previously in Receipt of Multiple Doses of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) Compared to Influenza Vaccine-naïve Controls
A Phase 4 study testing Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study) in people with Influenza Vaccination and Influenza, run by Public Health England at 3 sites in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
LAIV shedding studies in children could be an important way to confirm whether impediments to viral replication do indeed explain these observed reductions in vaccine effectiveness(VE), whether prior vaccination has any influence on replication and what future implications (if any) this might have for the UK… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 6 to 13 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Influenza Vaccination, Influenza, Vaccination
- What is being tested?
- Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study)
- Type of treatment
- Vaccines
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 373 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 2 Oct 2017to 13 Mar 2018
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 6 to 13 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- -
- Children may only be included in the study if all the inclusion criteria are met:
- Children age 6 to 13 years of age on enrolment and with either:
- Prior LAIV vaccination in at least 2 out of the 3 previous years
- Have never received LAIV or IIV in previous years
- Children eligible to receive LAIV in accordance with Green Book advice [https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england/series/immunisation-against-infectious-disease-the-green-book]
- Written informed consent given by parent/ guardian and assent from child (both must be in place to proceed)
Who cannot join
- -
- Children may not be included in the study if any of the following apply:
- Admission to Paediatric ntensice care unit (PICU) for invasive ventilation due to a respiratory illness in the preceding 2 years.
- Contraindications to LAIV (notwithstanding allergy to egg protein), which include:
- Hypersensitivity to the active ingredients, gelatin or gentamicin (a possible trace residue)
- Previous systemic allergic reaction to LAIV
Show all 21Show fewer
- Previous allergic reaction to an influenza vaccine (not LAIV) is a relative contra-indication, which must be discussed with the CI to confirm patient suitability
- Children/adolescents who are clinically immunodeficient due to conditions or immunosuppressive therapy such as: acute and chronic leukaemias; lymphoma; symptomatic HIV infection; cellular immune deficiencies; and high-dose corticosteroids*.
- High-dose steroids is defined as a treatment course for at least one month, equivalent to a dose greater than 20mg prednisolone per day (any age), or for children under 20kg, a dose greater than 1mg/kg/day.
- NB: LAIV is not contraindicated for use in individuals with asymptomatic HIV infection; or individuals who are receiving topical/inhaled/low-dose oral systemic corticosteroids or those receiving corticosteroids as replacement therapy, e.g. for adrenal insufficiency.
- Children / adolescents younger than 18 years of age receiving salicylate therapy because of the association of Reye's syndrome with salicylates and wild-type influenza infection.
- Pregnancy
- Contraindications to vaccination on that occasion, e.g. due to child being acutely unwell:
- Febrile ≥38.0oC in last 72 hours
- **Acute wheeze in last 72 hours requiring treatment beyond that normally prescribed for regular use by the child's treating healthcare professional
- **Recent admission to hospital in last 2 weeks for acute asthma
- **Current oral steroid for asthma exacerbation or course completed within last 2 weeks
- Any other significant condition or circumstance which, in the opinion of the investigator, may either put the participant at risk because of participation in the study, or may influence the result of the study, or the participant's ability to participate in the study.
- Items 3b-3d are relative contra-indications: Many children with "difficult-to-control" symptoms fail to meet these criteria on a routine basis. Where these are present, the CI is able to authorise participation on a case-by-case basis, after assessing the child at the time of enrolment.
- Administration of another live vaccine (e.g. MMR) within the previous 4 weeks is no longer a contra-indication to LAIV administration, according to updated UK Department of Health guidelines.
- NB: See Summary of Product Characteristics for full details of contra-indications to LAIV.
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 1 country.
United Kingdom3 sites
Gloucestershire primary care
Gloucester, Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire primary care
Hertford, Hertfordshire
Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust
London
About this study
LAIV shedding studies in children could be an important way to confirm whether impediments to viral replication do indeed explain these observed reductions in vaccine effectiveness(VE), whether prior vaccination has any influence on replication and what future implications (if any) this might have for the UK paediatric LAIV programme. LAIV virus replication in children will be dependent on virological and host factors. The virus factors include replicative fitness of individual strains and the susceptibility to inhibition by other replicating strains (ability to compete). Host factors which may influence this include pre-existing specific immunity as a result of prior infection or previous vaccination (with either LAIV or IIV), and innate immune factors including mucosal immunity. Understanding the relative importance of different factors over two seasons when the strain composition of the A/H1N1pdm09 LAIV virus will change and by comparing previously unvaccinated and highly vaccinated groups (with both LAIV and IIV), can potentially give unique insights into their contribution to the US LAIV observations.
With the change of the A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine strain in 2017/18, demonstrating improved performance (in terms of VE, virus shedding and immunogenicity) and what contribution prior vaccination might make will be key evidence for both the UK, but also the US. Information presented at the ACIP in June 2018 from the 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons will be key to inform US future decisions around use of LAIV.
This is a parallel group, non randomised study which will enrol at least 400 children. Both written informed consent from parent/ guardian and written assent from the child will be in place prior to any study procedure. The two groups will be defined by previous influenza vaccination history, with around half the children naïve to any influenza vaccination (LAIV or IIV) and half having had at least three doses of LAIV with or without IIV. All will follow the same schedule of vaccination and oral fluid collection at day 0 (by the nurse in the home or at the GP surgery); nasal swab collection (by the parent at home on days 1,3,6); day 21 oral fluid collection (by nurse or parent at home or at GP surgery).
Read the detailed description
The United States of America (USA) has a long-standing paediatric influenza vaccination programme, including use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). Following evidence of lack effectiveness of LAIV in 2015/16, the USA suspended use in the 2016/17 season. The UK introduced LAIV for children in 2013/14 and has since been closely monitoring programme performance. In 2015/16, the UK - in contrast to the USA - found evidence of significant effectiveness of LAIV against laboratory confirmed influenza in both primary and secondary care including against A/H1N1pdm09. The UK results concord with those from several other geographical settings, although several studies report relatively lower effectiveness of LAIV against A/H1N1pdm09 infection compared to inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV). The reasons for these apparent differences in effectiveness are currently unclear.
The USA has indicated that for the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practice (ACIP) to rescind their decision to suspend use of LAIV, they will require an understanding of the likely underlying mechanism for the apparent reduction in LAIV A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine effectiveness (VE) measured in observational studies in the USA and then evidence that the problem has been resolved.
Several hypotheses are emerging to explain the apparent reduction in A/H1N1pdm09 quadrivalent LAIV effectiveness in the USA last season and their discordance with findings elsewhere including the UK together with the possible lower effectiveness of LAIV against A/H1N1pdm09 compared to IIV. These include one or more of the following:
- Center for Disease Control (CDC)/ Department of Defense (DoD) specific finding - related to chance, methodology, programmatic issues
- Reduced replicative fitness of the current A/H1N1pdm09 strain.
- Viral interference/competition between A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine strain and other vaccine viruses in multivalent formulation;
- Prior vaccination with LAIV or IIV resulting in specific immunological interference with H1N1pdm09 vaccine virus replication;
- Repeat LAIV vaccination resulting in broader, longer term immunological changes affecting all viruses (mimicking adult response);
- Combinations of the above Based upon in vitro studies, the manufacturer of LAIV (MedImmune) have stated that reduced replicative fitness of the A/H1N1pdm09 strain is likely to be the important root cause. However, this factor alone cannot explain the difference in effectiveness observed between the USA and sites elsewhere including the UK. This suggests that there is an important additional factor(s) involved. The US programme has been running for many more years than the UK - and in addition children 6 months to 24 months of age are offered IIV, unlike the UK. These prior vaccine exposures are potential contributory factors.
LAIV shedding studies in children could be an important way to confirm whether impediments to viral replication do indeed explain these observed reductions in VE, whether prior vaccination has any influence on replication and what future implications (if any) this might have for the UK paediatric LAIV programme. LAIV virus replication in children will be dependent on virological and host factors. The virus factors include replicative fitness of individual strains and the susceptibility to inhibition by other replicating strains (ability to compete). Host factors which may influence this include pre-existing specific immunity as a result of prior infection or previous vaccination (with either LAIV or IIV), and innate immune factors including mucosal immunity. Understanding the relative importance of different factors over two seasons when the strain composition of the A/H1N1pdm09 LAIV virus will change and by comparing previously unvaccinated and highly vaccinated groups (with both LAIV and IIV), can potentially give unique insights into their contribution to the US LAIV observations.
With the change of the A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine strain in 2017/18, demonstrating improved performance (in terms of VE, virus shedding and immunogenicity) and what contribution prior vaccination might make will be key evidence for both the UK, but also the US. Information presented at the ACIP in June 2018 from the 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons will be key to inform US future decisions around use of LAIV.
This is a parallel group, non randomised study which will enrol at least 400 children. Both written informed consent from parent/ guardian and written assent from the child will be in place prior to any study procedure. The two groups will be defined by previous influenza vaccination history, with around half the children naïve to any influenza vaccination (LAIV or IIV) and half having had at least three doses of LAIV with or without IIV. All will follow the same schedule of vaccination and oral fluid collection at day 0 (by the nurse in the home or at the GP surgery); nasal swab collection (by the parent at home on days 1,3,6); day 21 oral fluid collection (by nurse or parent at home or at GP surgery).
- Conditions
- Influenza Vaccination, Influenza, Vaccination
- Being tested
- Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study)
- Medical subject headings
- Influenza, Human
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study)Biological
live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| naive | Experimental | Children who have never received any influenza vaccine (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study) Receives: Biological: Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study) |
| prior vaccinees | Experimental | Children who have received at least two doses of Fluenz Tetra previously (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study) Receives: Biological: Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
virus shedding
type-specific vaccine virus shedding and immunogenicity in 2017/18 and determine if there has been any change compared to previous studies in 2016/17 (conducted by this group, Eudract 2013-003592-35 and 2016-002352-24) following change in the A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine virus strain amongst children with the same prior vaccine history
Measured: day 0, day 21
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Apr 2017
- Study start2 Oct 2017
- Primary completion13 Mar 2018
- Study completion13 Mar 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Influenza VaccinationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Two groups based on prior vaccination history
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 373 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Public Health England
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Elizabeth Coates, PhD, Study chair, Public Health England
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03104790
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Flushed
- Acronym
- Flushed
- Status last verified
- Apr 2018
- First submitted
- 23 Mar 2017
- Last updated
- 28 Aug 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: not appllicable
Publications
Jackson D, Pitcher M, Hudson C, Andrews N, Southern J, Ellis J, Hoschler K, Pebody R, Turner PJ, Miller E, Zambon M. Viral Shedding in Recipients of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine in the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Influenza Seasons in the United Kingdom. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 10;70(12):2505-2513. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz719.
PubMed 31642899
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Aug 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Assessment of Viral Shedding in Children Previously in Receipt of Multiple Doses of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) Compared to Influenza Vaccine-naïve Controls
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03104790
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Flushed / Flushed
- Conditions
- Influenza Vaccination, Influenza, Vaccination
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 373 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Public Health EnglandOther government
- Study start
- 2 Oct 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 13 Mar 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 13 Mar 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Apr 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
LAIV shedding studies in children could be an important way to confirm whether impediments to viral replication do indeed explain these observed reductions in vaccine effectiveness(VE), whether prior vaccination has any influence on replication and what future implications (if any) this might have for the UK paediatric LAIV programme. LAIV virus replication in children will be dependent on virological and host factors. The virus factors include replicative fitness of individual strains and the susceptibility to inhibition by other replicating strains (ability to compete). Host factors which may influence this include pre-existing specific immunity as a result of prior infection or previous vaccination (with either LAIV or IIV), and innate immune factors including mucosal immunity. Understanding the relative importance of different factors over two seasons when the strain composition of the A/H1N1pdm09 LAIV virus will change and by comparing previously unvaccinated and highly vaccinated groups (with both LAIV and IIV), can potentially give unique insights into their contribution to the US LAIV observations.
With the change of the A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine strain in 2017/18, demonstrating improved performance (in terms of VE, virus shedding and immunogenicity) and what contribution prior vaccination might make will be key evidence for both the UK, but also the US. Information presented at the ACIP in June 2018 from the 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons will be key to inform US future decisions around use of LAIV.
This is a parallel group, non randomised study which will enrol at least 400 children. Both written informed consent from parent/ guardian and written assent from the child will be in place prior to any study procedure. The two groups will be defined by previous influenza vaccination history, with around half the children naïve to any influenza vaccination (LAIV or IIV) and half having had at least three doses of LAIV with or without IIV. All will follow the same schedule of vaccination and oral fluid collection at day 0 (by the nurse in the home or at the GP surgery); nasal swab collection (by the parent at home on days 1,3,6); day 21 oral fluid collection (by nurse or parent at home or at GP surgery).
Detailed description
The United States of America (USA) has a long-standing paediatric influenza vaccination programme, including use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). Following evidence of lack effectiveness of LAIV in 2015/16, the USA suspended use in the 2016/17 season. The UK introduced LAIV for children in 2013/14 and has since been closely monitoring programme performance. In 2015/16, the UK - in contrast to the USA - found evidence of significant effectiveness of LAIV against laboratory confirmed influenza in both primary and secondary care including against A/H1N1pdm09. The UK results concord with those from several other geographical settings, although several studies report relatively lower effectiveness of LAIV against A/H1N1pdm09 infection compared to inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV). The reasons for these apparent differences in effectiveness are currently unclear.
The USA has indicated that for the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practice (ACIP) to rescind their decision to suspend use of LAIV, they will require an understanding of the likely underlying mechanism for the apparent reduction in LAIV A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine effectiveness (VE) measured in observational studies in the USA and then evidence that the problem has been resolved.
Several hypotheses are emerging to explain the apparent reduction in A/H1N1pdm09 quadrivalent LAIV effectiveness in the USA last season and their discordance with findings elsewhere including the UK together with the possible lower effectiveness of LAIV against A/H1N1pdm09 compared to IIV. These include one or more of the following:
- Center for Disease Control (CDC)/ Department of Defense (DoD) specific finding - related to chance, methodology, programmatic issues
- Reduced replicative fitness of the current A/H1N1pdm09 strain.
- Viral interference/competition between A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine strain and other vaccine viruses in multivalent formulation;
- Prior vaccination with LAIV or IIV resulting in specific immunological interference with H1N1pdm09 vaccine virus replication;
- Repeat LAIV vaccination resulting in broader, longer term immunological changes affecting all viruses (mimicking adult response);
- Combinations of the above Based upon in vitro studies, the manufacturer of LAIV (MedImmune) have stated that reduced replicative fitness of the A/H1N1pdm09 strain is likely to be the important root cause. However, this factor alone cannot explain the difference in effectiveness observed between the USA and sites elsewhere including the UK. This suggests that there is an important additional factor(s) involved. The US programme has been running for many more years than the UK - and in addition children 6 months to 24 months of age are offered IIV, unlike the UK. These prior vaccine exposures are potential contributory factors.
LAIV shedding studies in children could be an important way to confirm whether impediments to viral replication do indeed explain these observed reductions in VE, whether prior vaccination has any influence on replication and what future implications (if any) this might have for the UK paediatric LAIV programme. LAIV virus replication in children will be dependent on virological and host factors. The virus factors include replicative fitness of individual strains and the susceptibility to inhibition by other replicating strains (ability to compete). Host factors which may influence this include pre-existing specific immunity as a result of prior infection or previous vaccination (with either LAIV or IIV), and innate immune factors including mucosal immunity. Understanding the relative importance of different factors over two seasons when the strain composition of the A/H1N1pdm09 LAIV virus will change and by comparing previously unvaccinated and highly vaccinated groups (with both LAIV and IIV), can potentially give unique insights into their contribution to the US LAIV observations.
With the change of the A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine strain in 2017/18, demonstrating improved performance (in terms of VE, virus shedding and immunogenicity) and what contribution prior vaccination might make will be key evidence for both the UK, but also the US. Information presented at the ACIP in June 2018 from the 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons will be key to inform US future decisions around use of LAIV.
This is a parallel group, non randomised study which will enrol at least 400 children. Both written informed consent from parent/ guardian and written assent from the child will be in place prior to any study procedure. The two groups will be defined by previous influenza vaccination history, with around half the children naïve to any influenza vaccination (LAIV or IIV) and half having had at least three doses of LAIV with or without IIV. All will follow the same schedule of vaccination and oral fluid collection at day 0 (by the nurse in the home or at the GP surgery); nasal swab collection (by the parent at home on days 1,3,6); day 21 oral fluid collection (by nurse or parent at home or at GP surgery).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Two groups based on prior vaccination history
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| naive | Experimental | Biological: Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study)Children who have never received any influenza vaccine (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study) |
| prior vaccinees | Experimental | Biological: Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study)Children who have received at least two doses of Fluenz Tetra previously (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 6 to 13 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- -
- Children age 6 to 13 years of age on enrolment and with either:
- Children eligible to receive LAIV in accordance with Green Book advice [https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england/series/immunisation-against-infectious-disease-the-green-book]
- Written informed consent given by parent/ guardian and assent from child (both must be in place to proceed)
Key exclusion criteria (21 listed)
- -
- Admission to Paediatric ntensice care unit (PICU) for invasive ventilation due to a respiratory illness in the preceding 2 years.
- Contraindications to LAIV (notwithstanding allergy to egg protein), which include:
- High-dose steroids is defined as a treatment course for at least one month, equivalent to a dose greater than 20mg prednisolone per day (any age), or for children under 20kg, a dose greater than 1mg/kg/day.
- NB: LAIV is not contraindicated for use in individuals with asymptomatic HIV infection; or individuals who are receiving topical/inhaled/low-dose oral systemic corticosteroids or those receiving corticosteroids as replacement therapy, e.g. for adrenal insufficiency.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study)live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) | Biological | naive, prior vaccinees |
Primary outcome
virus shedding
Time frame: day 0, day 21
type-specific vaccine virus shedding and immunogenicity in 2017/18 and determine if there has been any change compared to previous studies in 2016/17 (conducted by this group, Eudract 2013-003592-35 and 2016-002352-24) following change in the A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine virus strain amongst children with the same prior vaccine history
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Aug 2019.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 31642899Jackson D, Pitcher M, Hudson C, Andrews N, Southern J, Ellis J, Hoschler K, Pebody R, Turner PJ, Miller E, Zambon M. Viral Shedding in Recipients of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine in the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Influenza Seasons in the United Kingdom. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 10;70(12):2505-2513. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz719.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. not appllicable
Related trials for Influenza Vaccination
Active, not recruiting
Conversational AI for Adult Flu Vaccination Decisions
Influenza, Human, Vaccine Hesitancy
Active, not recruitingObservational study
SCIVAX: Biomarkers of Immune Dysfunction and Vaccine Responsiveness in Chronic SCI
Spinal Cord Injuries, Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
RecruitingPhase 4
Age-Associated Differences in Germinal Center Responses to Influenza and Rabies Vaccination in Humans
Healthy Adult Participants, Age 65 and Older
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Intradermal Influenza Vaccination
Vaccine Reaction
RecruitingPhase 4
Impact of Egg-Based and Cell-Based Vaccine Platforms on Immune Responses to Repeated Influenza Vaccination
Immunology
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Elizabeth Coates, PhD study chair
Public Health England
3 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Fluenz Tetra (The two groups are defined by immunisation history, all receive the same intervention in the study) in people with Influenza Vaccination and Influenza, run by Public Health England at 3 sites in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 21 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Aug 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
virus shedding (time frame: day 0, day 21). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03104790, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Aug 2019.