Waldman R H, Bond J O, Levitt L P, Hartwig E C, Prather E C, Baratta R L, Neill J S, Small P A
Bull World Health Organ. 1969;41(3):543-8.
A field study was undertaken in Tampa, Fla., to assess the efficacy of subcutaneous and aerosol methods of administering vaccine, and to compare the protection afforded by bivalent (A2 and B) influenza virus vaccine and by A2/Hong Kong/68 virus vaccine. Further objectives of the study included a comparison of the effectiveness of single-dose and 2-dose immunization. Approximately 2100 volunteers received, in a double-blind manner, both an injection and an aerosol administration on 2 occasions 3 weeks apart. The results showed that aerosol administration gave a lower over-all protection rate, although the booster dose seemed to have a marked effect. The protection afforded by A2/Hong Kong/68 virus vaccine was considerably greater than that afforded by the bivalent vaccine, particularly when administration was subcutaneous. Results are also given on the occurrence of side-effects and on the correlation between cigarette smoking and the occurrence of influenza-like illness.
在佛罗里达州坦帕市进行了一项现场研究，以评估皮下注射和气溶胶方式接种疫苗的效果，并比较二价（A2和B）流感病毒疫苗与A2/香港/68病毒疫苗提供的保护作用。该研究的其他目标包括比较单剂量和双剂量免疫的效果。约2100名志愿者以双盲方式，在相隔3周的两个不同时间分别接受了一次注射和气溶胶接种。结果显示，气溶胶接种的总体保护率较低，不过加强剂量似乎有显著效果。A2/香港/68病毒疫苗提供的保护作用明显大于二价疫苗，尤其是皮下接种时。还给出了副作用发生情况以及吸烟与流感样疾病发生之间相关性的结果。
