Global production capacity of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines in 2019.

Vaccines will be an important element in mitigating the impact of an influenza pandemic. While research towards developing universal influenza vaccines is ongoing, the current strategy for vaccine supply in a pandemic relies on seasonal influenza vaccine production to be switched over to pandemic vaccines. Understanding how much vaccine could be produced, in which regions of the world and in what timeframe is critical to informing influenza pandemic preparedness. Through the Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines, 2006-2016, WHO promoted an increase in vaccine production capacity and monitors the landscape through periodically surveying influenza vaccine manufacturers. This study compares global capacity for production of influenza vaccines in 2019 with estimates from previous surveys; provides an overview of countries with established production facilities; presents vaccine production by type and manufacturing process; and discusses limitations to these estimates. Results of the current survey show that estimated annual seasonal influenza vaccine production capacity changed little since 2015 increasing from 1.47 billion to 1.48 billion doses with potential maximum annual influenza pandemic vaccine production capacity increasing from 6.37 billion to 8.31 billion doses. However, this figure should be interpreted with caution as it presents a best-case scenario with several assumptions which may impact supply. Further, pandemic vaccines would not be immediately available and could take four to six months for first supplies with several more months needed to reach maximum capacity. A moderate-case scenario is also presented of 4.15 billion doses of pandemic vaccine in 12 months. It is important to note that two doses of pandemic vaccine are likely to be required to elicit an adequate immune response. Continued efforts are needed to ensure the sustainability of this production and to conduct research for vaccines that are faster to produce and more broadly protective taking into account lessons learned from COVID-19 vaccine development.

Safety and immunogenicity of a seasonal trivalent inactivated split influenza vaccine: a double blind, phase III randomized clinical trial in healthy Serbian adults.

This study was a phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a seasonal trivalent split, inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in healthy Serbian adults between the ages of 18 and 65 years. This egg-based vaccine was manufactured by the Institute of Virology, Vaccines and Sera, Torlak, Belgrade, Serbia. A total of 480 participants were assigned randomly in a ratio of 2:1 to receive a single intramuscular dose (0.5 ml) of the vaccine (15 µg of hemagglutinin per strain) or placebo (phosphate-buffered saline). Participants were monitored for safety, including solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). No SAEs related to vaccination were reported. Injection site pain (51.3%), injection site tenderness (40.4%), tiredness (17.0%), and headache (15.1%) were the most commonly reported solicited events in the vaccine group. Incidence of related unsolicited AEs was low (1.3%) among vaccinees. Hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) titers were measured before and 21 days after vaccination in 151 participants. Overall, HAI seroconversion rates to H1 and H3 were observed in 90.1% and 76.2% of vaccinees, respectively. For B antigen, it was 51.5%, likely due to high pre-vaccination titers. Post-vaccination seroprotection rates were in the range of 78.2-95.0% for the three antigens. Post-vaccination geometric mean titers (GMT) were at least 3.8 times higher than baseline levels for all the three strains among vaccinees. Overall, the study showed that the vaccine was safe and well tolerated, and induced a robust immune response against all three vaccine strains. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02935192, October 17, 2016.

A Phase 1 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Safety, Immunogenicity and Genetic Stability of a New Potential Pandemic H7N9 Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine in Healthy Adults.

This study describes a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled phase I clinical trial in healthy adults of a new potential pandemic H7N9 live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) based on the human influenza virus of Yangtze River Delta hemagglutinin lineage (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03739229). Two doses of H7N9 LAIV or placebo were administered intranasally to 30 and 10 subjects, respectively. The vaccine was well-tolerated and not associated with increased rates of adverse events or with any serious adverse events. Vaccine virus was detected in nasal swabs during the 6 days after vaccination or revaccination. A lower frequency of shedding was observed after the second vaccination. Twenty-five clinical viral isolates obtained after the first and second doses of vaccine retained the temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted phenotypic characteristics of LAIV. There was no confirmed transmission of the vaccine strain from vaccinees to placebo recipients. After the two H7N9 LAIV doses, an immune response was observed in 96.6% of subjects in at least one of the assays conducted.

Rationale for vaccination with trivalent or quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccines: Protective vaccine efficacy in the ferret model.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The majority of seasonal influenza vaccines are trivalent, containing two A virus strains (H1N1 and H3N2) and one B virus strain. The co-circulation of two distinct lineages of B viruses can lead to mismatch between the influenza B virus strain recommended for the trivalent seasonal vaccine and the circulating B virus. This has led some manufacturers to produce quadrivalent influenza vaccines containing one strain from each B lineage in addition to H1N1 and H3N2 strains. However, it is also important to know whether vaccines containing a single influenza B strain can provide cross-protectivity against viruses of the antigenically distinct lineage. The aim of this study was to assess in naïve ferrets the potential cross-protective activity of trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (T-LAIV) against challenge with a heterologous wild-type influenza B virus belonging to the genetically different lineage and to compare this activity with effectiveness of quadrivalent LAIV (Q-LAIV) in the ferret model. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ferrets were vaccinated with either one dose of trivalent LAIV containing B/Victoria or B/Yamagata lineage virus, or quadrivalent LAIV (containing both B lineages), or placebo. They were then challenged with B/Victoria or B/Yamagata lineage wild-type virus 28 days after vaccination. The ferrets were monitored for clinical signs and morbidity. Nasal swabs and lung tissue samples were analyzed for the presence of challenge virus. Antibody response to vaccination was assessed by routine hemagglutination inhibition assay. All LAIVs tested were found to be safe and effective against wild-type influenza B viruses based on clinical signs, and virological and histological data. The absence of interference between vaccine strains in trivalent and quadrivalent vaccine formulations was confirmed. Trivalent LAIVs were shown to have the potential to be cross-protective against infection with genetically different influenza B/Victoria and B/Yamagata lineages. CONCLUSIONS: In this ferret model, quadrivalent vaccine provided higher protection to challenge against both B/Victoria and B/Yamagata lineage viruses. However, T-LAIV provided some cross-protection in the case of a mismatch between circulating and vaccine type B strains. Notably, B/Victoria-based T-LAIV was more protective compared to B/Yamagata-based T-LAIV.

Two Live Attenuated Vaccines against Recent Low⁻and Highly Pathogenic H7N9 Influenza Viruses Are Safe and Immunogenic in Ferrets.

Influenza H7N9 virus is a potentially pandemic subtype to which most people are immunologically naïve. To be better prepared for the potential occurrence of an H7N9 pandemic, in 2017 the World Health Organization recommended developing candidate vaccine viruses from two new H7N9 viruses, A/Guangdong/17SF003/2016 (A/GD) and A/Hong Kong/125/2017 (A/HK). This report describes the development of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) candidates against A/GD and A/HK viruses and study of their safety and immunogenicity in the ferret model in order to choose the most promising one for a phase I clinical trial. The A/HK-based vaccine candidate (A/17/HK) was developed by classical reassortment in eggs. The A/GD-based vaccine candidate (A/17/GD) was generated by reverse genetics. Ferrets were vaccinated with two doses of LAIV or phosphate-buffered saline. Both H7N9 LAIVs tested were safe for ferrets, as shown by absence of clinical signs, and by virological and histological data; they were immunogenic after a single vaccination. These results provide a compelling argument for further testing of these vaccines in volunteers. Since the A/HK virus represents the cluster that has caused the majority of human cases, and because the A/HK-based LAIV candidate was developed by classical reassortment, this is the preferred candidate for a phase I clinical trial.

Cross-Protective Efficacy of Monovalent Live Influenza B Vaccines against Genetically Different Lineages of B/Victoria and B/Yamagata in Ferrets.

BACKGROUND: Currently, two genetic lineages of influenza B virus, B/Victoria and B/Yamagata, are cocirculating in humans in various countries. This situation has raised a question regarding the possibility of cross-protection between B components of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) belonging to different lineages. This study aimed to assess in naïve ferrets the potential protective activity of monovalent B-LAIVs against challenge with homologous and heterologous wild-type (WT) influenza B viruses. METHODS: Groups of seronegative female ferrets 5-6 months of age were given one dose of monovalent LAIV based on B/Victoria or B/Yamagata lineage virus. Ferrets were challenged 21 days later with B/Victoria or B/Yamagata WT virus. Ferrets were monitored closely for clinical signs and morbidity outcomes including febrile response, body weight loss, nasal symptoms, and level of activity one week prior to vaccination and for three days following vaccination/challenge. Nasal washes were collected three days after vaccination/challenge. Samples of lung tissue were taken three days after challenge. All samples were analyzed for the presence of challenge virus by culturing in embryonated chicken eggs and real-time polymerase chain reaction. Antibody response to vaccination was assessed by routine hemagglutination inhibition assay and microneutralization test. RESULTS: Vaccination led to intensive production of specific neutralizing and antihemagglutinating antibodies to vaccine virus, protected ferrets from homologous challenge infection, and significantly reduced clinical signs and replication of homologous challenge virus. In contrast, cross-lineage serum antibodies were not detected. However, ferrets vaccinated with monovalent B-LAIV had a significantly lower level of heterologous challenge virus in the respiratory tract than those given challenge virus only. CONCLUSIONS: Monovalent B-LAIV has the potential to be cross-protective against infection with genetically different influenza lineages. Further studies are required to confirm this effect.

Quadrivalent influenza vaccines in low and middle income countries: Cost-effectiveness, affordability and availability.

In high-income countries, there is an increased tendency to replace inactivated seasonal trivalent influenza (TIV) vaccines with quadrivalent (QIV) vaccines as these are considered to give a greater public health benefit. In addition, several recent studies from the USA and Europe indicate that replacement with QIV might also be cost-effective; however, the situation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is less clear as few studies have investigated this aspect. The paper by de Boer et al. (2008) describes a dynamic modelling study commissioned by WHO that suggests that in LMICs, under certain conditions, QIV might also be more cost-effective than TIV. In this commentary, we discuss some important aspects that policymakers in LMICs might wish to take into account when considering replacing TIV by QIV. Indeed, from the data presented in the paper by de Boer et al. it can be inferred that replacing QIV for TIV would mean a 25-29% budget increase for seasonal influenza vaccination in South Africa and Vietnam, resulting in an incremental influenza-related health impact reduction of only 7-8% when a 10% symptomatic attack rate is assumed. We argue that national health budget considerations in LMIC might lead decision-makers to choose other investments with higher health impact for a budget equivalent to roughly a quarter of the yearly TIV immunization costs. In addition to an increased annual cost that would be associated with a decision to replace TIV with QIV, there would be an increased pressure on manufacturers to produce QIV in time for the influenza season requiring manufacturers to produce some components of the seasonal vaccine at risk prior to the WHO recommendations for influenza vaccines. Unless the current uncertainties, impracticalities and increased costs associated with QIVs are resolved, TIVs are likely to remain the more attractive option for many LMICs. Each country should establish its context-specific process for decision-making based on national data on disease burden and costs in order to determine whether the health gains out-weigh the additional cost of moving to QIV. For example, immunizing more people in the population, especially those in higher risk groups, with TIV might not only provide better value for money but also deliver better health outcomes in LMICs. Countries with local influenza vaccine manufacturing capacity should include in their seasonal influenza vaccine procurement process an analysis of the pros- and cons- of TIV versus QIV, to ensure both feasibility and sustainability of local manufacturing.

Safety and immunogenicity of a seasonal trivalent inactivated split influenza vaccine: a phase I randomized clinical trial in healthy Serbian adults.

This study was a phase I double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a Serbian-produced seasonal trivalent split, inactivated influenza vaccine in healthy adults. The vaccine was manufactured in eggs by the Torlak Institute of Virology, Vaccines and Sera, Belgrade, Serbia and contained A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B viruses. The clinical trial took place at the Clinical Center of Serbia in Belgrade. Sixty healthy volunteers, aged 18-45 years, were enrolled in the trial. On the day of immunization, volunteers were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of the trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (15 µg of hemagglutinin per strain) or placebo (phosphate-buffered saline). Subjects were monitored for adverse events through a clinical history and physical examination, and blood was taken for testing at screening and on day 8 to assess vaccine safety. Serum samples obtained before and 21 days after immunization were tested for influenza antibody titers using hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) and microneutralization (MN) tests. No serious adverse events were reported. Pain and tenderness at the injection site were the most commonly reported symptoms in both vaccine and placebo groups. Overall, serum HAI responses of fourfold or greater magnitude were observed to H1, H3, and B antigen in 80%, 75%, and 70% of subjects, respectively. Seroprotection rates as measured by HAI were also high (100%, 100% and 86.67%, respectively, for H1, H3 and B). Thus, Torlak's seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine was not associated with adverse events, was well-tolerated and immunogenic. It should be further evaluated in clinical trials to provide sufficient safety and immunogenicity data for licensing in Serbia.

Stakeholders' perceptions of 10years of the Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines (GAP) - Results from a survey.

Ten years after the launch of the Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines (GAP), the World Health Organization (WHO) surveyed stakeholders to understand their perceptions of what the programme had achieved. This article provides a summary of the findings; the full report will be available on-line on the GAP website in November 2016 (http://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/en/). Seventy-seven responses were received from stakeholders including medical doctors, national influenza center officials, country immunization programme teams, surveillance and disease centers, policy-makers, researchers, vaccine manufacturers, and non-governmental organizations from 28 countries, representing all six WHO regions. Respondents cited GAP's biggest successes as capacity building in developing countries; raising international awareness of global needs in the event of a pandemic; and collaborative alignment of influenza stakeholders. The most commonly reported challenges were the limited progress in development of a broadly protective or universal vaccine and the perceived absence of a major increase in seasonal demand. These findings aligned with the perception that less global progress had been made under the third GAP objective, focused on research and development of better vaccines, than on increasing seasonal vaccine use (objective 1) and pandemic vaccine production capacity (objective 2). Respondents explained what they saw as the major challenges to development of better vaccines, including to development of a universal influenza vaccine. The majority of respondents agreed that the goal chosen at the GAP II consultation is still relevant. Results highlighted the importance of promoting research and development of better vaccines, both for facilitating uptake of seasonal vaccines and for ensuring timely vaccine availability in the event of a pandemic. As the GAP concludes its mandate this year, these findings will contribute to discussions on the impact of programme closure and how to address the key issues facing influenza stakeholders thereafter.

The 2015 global production capacity of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccine.

A global shortage and inequitable access to influenza vaccines has been cause for concern for developing countries who face dire consequences in the event of a pandemic. The Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines (GAP) was launched in 2006 to increase global capacity for influenza vaccine production to address these concerns. It is widely recognized that well-developed infrastructure to produce seasonal influenza vaccines leads to increased capacity to produce pandemic influenza vaccines. This article summarizes the results of a survey administered to 44 manufacturers to assess their production capacity for seasonal influenza and pandemic influenza vaccine production. When the GAP was launched in 2006, global production capacity for seasonal and pandemic vaccines was estimated to be 500million and 1.5billion doses respectively. Since 2006 there has been a significant increase in capacity, with the 2013 survey estimating global capacity at 1.5billion seasonal and 6.2billion pandemic doses. Results of the current survey showed that global seasonal influenza vaccine production capacity has decreased since 2013 from 1.504billion doses to 1.467billion doses. However, notwithstanding the overall global decrease in seasonal vaccine capacity there were notable positive changes in the distribution of production capacity with increases noted in South East Asia (SEAR) and the Western Pacific (WPR) regions, albeit on a small scale. Despite a decrease in seasonal capacity, there has been a global increase of pandemic influenza vaccine production capacity from 6.2 billion doses in 2013 to 6.4 billion doses in 2015. This growth can be attributed to a shift towards more quadrivalent vaccine production and also to increased use of adjuvants. Pandemic influenza vaccine production capacity is at its highest recorded levels however challenges remain in maintaining this capacity and in ensuring access in the event of a pandemic to underserved regions.

WHO initiative to increase global and equitable access to influenza vaccine in the event of a pandemic: supporting developing country production capacity through technology transfer.

Should a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, such as the H5N1 virus type currently circulating in birds, become transmissible among humans, an effective vaccine, rapidly available in vast quantities, would be the best tool to prevent high case-fatalities and the breakdown of health and social services. The number of vaccine doses that could be produced on demand has risen sharply over the last few years; however, it is still alarmingly short of the 13 billion doses that would be needed if two doses were required to protect fully the world's population. Most developing countries would be last in the queue to benefit from a pandemic vaccine. The World Health Organization, together with governments, the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders, has been implementing the global pandemic influenza action plan to increase vaccine supply since 2006. Building capacity in developing countries to manufacture influenza vaccine is an integral part of this plan, as well as research and development into more efficacious technologies, e.g. those that allow significant dose-sparing. To this end, the influenza vaccine technology transfer initiative was launched in 2007 and, to date, vaccine manufacturers in 11 developing countries have received grants to acquire the capacity to produce inactivated or live attenuated influenza vaccine for their populations. In addition, a centralized 'hub' has been established to facilitate training in the new technologies for scientists and regulators in the countries. This supplement of Vaccine is devoted to showcasing the interim results of the WHO initiative and the impressive progress made by the developing country manufacturers.

Program and read scaling trade-offs in phase change memories.

This paper investigates the scaling perspectives of Phase Change Memory technology by analyzing the effects of geometrical dimensions reduction and the read voltage scaling on program and read operations. To this end, we derive analytical expressions which allow us to estimate the dependence of the RESET and read current on key geometrical parameters of the memory cell, such as heater size and chalcogenide layer thickness.