Dennis,
I don't understand Haolin Ni's point either.
It's worth reviewing the Dec 12, 1999 press release below.
siliconinvestor.com
<<<the study team, led by John J. Treanor, M.D., associate professor of medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY, reported that the estimated levels of protective efficacy against laboratory-confirmed influenza were 85 percent with FluMist(TM) and 71 percent with the flu shot. Both FluMist(TM) and the flu shot provided statistically significant protective efficacy compared to the placebo, however, the difference between these two protective efficacy numbers is not statistically significant. Laboratory-confirmed influenza illness occurred in 14/31 (45 percent) of the placebo recipients, 4/32 (13 percent) of the flu shot recipients and 2/29 (seven percent) of the FluMist(TM) recipients. Aviron announced preliminary results from this study in 1996, prior to peer review and publication.
"The efficacy data we observed with FluMist(TM) from this adult challenge trial is very encouraging since influenza can cause significant suffering, family disruption and work loss in healthy adults," said Dr. Treanor.
Vaccination was generally well tolerated, with the most commonly reported symptoms in all three study arms being runny nose and cough. Overall, the rates of symptoms were similar for FluMist(TM), flu shot and placebo recipients.
"These results track very closely with other data on FluMist(TM)," said C. Boyd Clarke, president and chief executive officer of Aviron. "In subsequent trials in healthy children, we have seen an overall protection rate as high as 93 percent (N=1602). Currently, only a small percentage of healthy children and adults are immunized against influenza. We think FluMist(TM) could eventually provide an attractive new option to these populations.>>> |
