Randomized Comparison of Immunogenicity and Safety of Quadrivalent Recombinant Versus Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Healthy Adults 18-49 Years of Age.

Background: Seasonal influenza vaccines are transitioning to quadrivalent formulations including the hemagglutinins of influenza A subtypes H1N1 and H3N2 and B lineages Yamagata and Victoria. Methods: A new quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) was compared directly with a standard-dose, egg-grown, quadrivalent-inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) for immunogenicity and safety in adults 18-49 years of age. The coprimary endpoints for noninferiority were hemagglutination inhibition seroconversion rates and postvaccination geometric mean titer ratios for each antigen using US regulatory criteria. Reactogenicity solicited for 7 days, other safety events collected for 28 days, and serious or medically attended adverse events collected for 6 months after vaccination comprised the safety evaluation. Results: The immunogenicity of RIV4 was comparable to that of IIV4; the coprimary noninferiority criteria were met for 3 antigens, and the antibody responses to the fourth antigen, influenza B/Brisbane/60/2008, were low in each group, making comparisons uninterpretable. Systemic and injection site reactions were mild, transient, and similar in each group, whereas none of the spontaneously reported adverse events, serious or nonserious, were considered related to study vaccine. Conclusions: This first head-to-head comparison of recombinant versus inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccines in 18-49 year old adults showed comparable immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability for both vaccines.

Expert review on poliovirus immunity and transmission.

Successfully managing risks to achieve wild polioviruses (WPVs) eradication and address the complexities of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation to stop all cases of paralytic poliomyelitis depends strongly on our collective understanding of poliovirus immunity and transmission. With increased shifting from OPV to inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), numerous risk management choices motivate the need to understand the tradeoffs and uncertainties and to develop models to help inform decisions. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hosted a meeting of international experts in April 2010 to review the available literature relevant to poliovirus immunity and transmission. This expert review evaluates 66 OPV challenge studies and other evidence to support the development of quantitative models of poliovirus transmission and potential outbreaks. This review focuses on characterization of immunity as a function of exposure history in terms of susceptibility to excretion, duration of excretion, and concentration of excreted virus. We also discuss the evidence of waning of host immunity to poliovirus transmission, the relationship between the concentration of poliovirus excreted and infectiousness, the importance of different transmission routes, and the differences in transmissibility between OPV and WPV. We discuss the limitations of the available evidence for use in polio risk models, and conclude that despite the relatively large number of studies on immunity, very limited data exist to directly support quantification of model inputs related to transmission. Given the limitations in the evidence, we identify the need for expert input to derive quantitative model inputs from the existing data.

Review and assessment of poliovirus immunity and transmission: synthesis of knowledge gaps and identification of research needs.

With the intensifying global efforts to eradicate wild polioviruses, policymakers face complex decisions related to achieving eradication and managing posteradication risks. These decisions and the expanding use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) trigger renewed interest in poliovirus immunity, particularly the role of mucosal immunity in the transmission of polioviruses. Sustained high population immunity to poliovirus transmission represents a key prerequisite to eradication, but poliovirus immunity and transmission remain poorly understood despite decades of studies. In April 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened an international group of experts on poliovirus immunology and virology to review the literature relevant for modeling poliovirus transmission, develop a consensus about related uncertainties, and identify research needs. This article synthesizes the quantitative assessments and research needs identified during the process. Limitations in the evidence from oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) challenge studies and other relevant data led to differences in expert assessments, indicating the need for additional data, particularly in several priority areas for research: (1) the ability of IPV-induced immunity to prevent or reduce excretion and affect transmission, (2) the impact of waning immunity on the probability and extent of poliovirus excretion, (3) the relationship between the concentration of poliovirus excreted and infectiousness to others in different settings, and (4) the relative role of fecal-oral versus oropharyngeal transmission. This assessment of current knowledge supports the immediate conduct of additional studies to address the gaps.

Integrating Electronic Medical Records and Claims Data for Influenza Vaccine Research.

Real-world evidence (RWE) increasingly informs public health and healthcare decisions worldwide. A large database has been created ("Integrated Dataset") that integrates primary care electronic medical records with pharmacy and medical claims data on >123 million US patients since 2014. This article describes the components of the Integrated Dataset and evaluates its representativeness to the US population and its potential use in evaluating influenza vaccine effectiveness. Representativeness to the US population (2014−2019) was evaluated by comparison with demographic information from the 2019 US census and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). Variables included in the Integrated Dataset were evaluated against World Health Organization (WHO) defined key and non-critical variables for evaluating influenza vaccine performance. The Integrated Dataset contains a variety of information, including demographic data, patient medical history, diagnoses, immunizations, and prescriptions. Distributions of most age categories and sex were comparable with the US Census and NAMCS populations. The Integrated Dataset was less diverse by race and ethnicity. Additionally, WHO key and non-critical variables for the estimation of influenza vaccine effectiveness are available in the Integrated Dataset. In summary, the Integrated Dataset is generally representative of the US population and contains key variables for the assessment of influenza vaccine effectiveness.

Immunogenicity of aIIV3, MF59-adjuvanted seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine, in older adults ≥65 years of age: Meta-analysis of cumulative clinical experience.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the immunogenicity of MF59-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad™) versus conventional trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) in an integrated dataset using a meta-analysis. METHODS: In a meta-analysis, the immunogenicity of aIIV3 in subjects ≥65 years of age was compared with IIV3 immunogenicity using hemagglutination inhibition assay results from 23 phase I through III randomized controlled trials, including 16 first-dose vaccination studies and 7 revaccination studies assessing immunogenicity after second or third annual vaccination. RESULTS: The full analysis set consisted of 11,105 subjects (5869 aIIV3 and 5236 IIV3). In the revaccination studies, 822 individuals received 2 consecutive annual influenza vaccinations (492 aIIV3 and 330 IIV3), and 237 received 3 (150 aIIV3 and 87 IIV3). Overall, across all strains, the meta-analyzed point estimates for seroconversion (SC) and geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio were significantly higher for aIIV3 versus IIV3. The meta-analyzed percent differences in SC with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strain were 9.5% (5.2-13.9), 10.5% (6.6-14.5), and 12.7% (8.6-16.8), respectively. The meta-analyzed GMT ratios with corresponding 95% CI for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strain were 1.15 (1.01-1.31), 1.30 (1.18-1.44), 1.23 (1.15-1.31). Antibody responses against heterologous influenza strains were also significantly higher with aIIV3. Revaccination studies showed continued robust immune response to aIIV3 with repeated vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: aIIV3 elicited a statistically significantly greater immune response compared to conventional IIV3 in older adults, increasing the breadth and duration of the immune response.

Analysis of the Risks and Benefits of New Chemical Entities Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Subsequently Withdrawn From the US Market.

Benefit-risk evaluations of drugs have been conducted since the introduction of modern regulatory systems more than 50 years ago. Such judgments are typically made on the basis of qualitative or semiquantitative approaches, often without the aid of quantitative assessment methods, the latter having often been applied asymmetrically to place emphasis on benefit more so than harm. In an effort to preliminarily evaluate the utility of lives lost or saved, or quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) lost and gained as a means of quantitatively assessing the potential benefits and risks of a new chemical entity, we focused our attention on the unique scenario in which a drug was initially approved based on one set of data, but later withdrawn from the market based on a second set of data. In this analysis, a dimensionless risk to benefit ratio was calculated in each instance, based on the risk and benefit quantified in similar units. The results indicated that FDA decisions to approve the drug corresponded to risk to benefit ratios less than or equal to 0.136, and that decisions to withdraw the drug from the US market corresponded to risk to benefit ratios greater than or equal to 0.092. The probability of FDA approval was then estimated using logistic regression analysis. The results of this analysis indicated that there was a 50% probability of FDA approval if the risk to benefit ratio was 0.121, and that the probability approaches 100% for values much less than 0.121, and the probability approaches 0% for values much greater than 0.121. The large uncertainty in these estimates due to the small sample size and overlapping data may be addressed in the future by applying the methodology to other drugs.

Safety and Immunogenicity of a Recombinant Influenza Vaccine: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The recombinant influenza vaccine is well established in adults ≥18 years of age for preventing seasonal influenza disease. In this randomized controlled trial, we compared the safety and immunogenicity of the quadrivalent, recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) versus the inactivated influenza vaccine in children and adolescents 6 to 17 years of age. METHODS: Two age cohorts were enrolled sequentially: 159 subjects aged 9 to 17 years and, after reviewing for safety, 60 children aged 6 to 8 years. Enrollment of the younger children was halted prematurely at the onset of the influenza season. Subjects in each cohort were randomly assigned 1:1 to the RIV4 or inactivated vaccine. Hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers were obtained before and 28 days after vaccination. Tolerability and safety were monitored for 7 days and 6 months after vaccination, respectively. RESULTS: Both vaccines were well tolerated in both age groups, and long-term follow-up revealed no vaccine-related adverse events. Overall, immunogenicity (geometric mean titers and seroconversion rate differences) provided comparable antibody responses to most antigens in both vaccines in the older subjects. Low responses to the influenza B Victoria lineage in both vaccines made interpretation difficult. Immunogenicity in younger children was similar, but the truncated sample size was insufficient to support noninferiority comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Despite low responses to influenza B lineages in both vaccines, the RIV4 provided safety and immunogenicity that were comparable to those of the licensed inactivated vaccine in pediatric subjects, which was most convincing in those aged 9 to 17 years. Future confirmatory clinical efficacy trials may be used to support the recombinant influenza vaccine as an alternative for the pediatric age group of ≥6 years.

Randomized comparison of the safety of Flublok(®) versus licensed inactivated influenza vaccine in healthy, medically stable adults ≥ 50 years of age.

BACKGROUND: The safety and tolerability of Flublok(®), a purified recombinant hemagglutinin seasonal influenza vaccine, was compared to AFLURIA(®) in a randomized, blinded clinical trial in adults ≥ 50 years of age with attention to hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS: This blinded, randomized trial of healthy adults ≥ 50 years of age compared safety of Flublok vs. AFLURIA with respect to pre-specified possible hypersensitivity: "rash," "urticaria," "swelling" and "non-dependent edema;" solicited reactogenicity and unsolicited adverse events. Subject-reported outcomes were collected for 30 days after vaccination. All adverse event terms were reviewed by physicians blinded to vaccine group, who added other terms possibly reflecting hypersensitivity. Case records of subjects with possible hypersensitivity were adjudicated by independent experts blinded to treatment assignment to identify likely hypersensitivity reactions. Non-inferiority of the incidence of hypersensitivity in the two vaccine groups was pre-defined as an absolute difference with an upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence limits ≤ 0.015. RESULTS: A total of 2640 subjects were enrolled, evenly split in age cohorts of 50-64 and ≥ 65 years. Fifty-two subjects reported at least one term possibly representing hypersensitivity, with a slight imbalance of 31 on Flublok and 21 on AFLURIA. The adjudicators determined that six and four subjects on Flublok and AFLURIA, respectively, likely met clinical criteria for hypersensitivity, yielding a difference in incidence between the two vaccine groups of 0.15% (upper bound of 2-sided 95% CI=0.9%). Reactogenicity and overall adverse event profiles were similar across both vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Flublok was non-inferior to AFLURIA in adults ≥ 50 years of age with respect to expert-adjudicated events of likely hypersensitivity during 30 days following vaccination (Sponsored by Protein Sciences Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01825200).

FluBlok, a recombinant hemagglutinin influenza vaccine.

FluBlok, a recombinant trivalent hemagglutinin (HA) vaccine produced in insect cell culture using the baculovirus expression system, provides an attractive alternative to the current egg-based trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) manufacturing process. FluBlok contains three times more HA than TIV and does not contain egg-protein or preservatives. This review discusses the four main clinical studies that were used to support licensure of FluBlok under the 'Accelerated Approval' mechanism in the United States.

Preparing for pandemic influenza: the need for enhanced surveillance.

In the US, planning for the next influenza pandemic is occurring in parallel at the national, state and local levels. Certain issues, such as conducting surveillance and purchasing pandemic vaccine, require co-ordination at the national level. However, most prevention and control actions will be implemented at the state and local levels, which vary widely in terms of population demographics, culture (e.g. rural versus urban) and available resources. In 1995, a survey by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) found that only 29 (59%) states perceived a need to develop a specific influenza pandemic plan for their jurisdiction. Since then, the process of developing state and local plans has gained considerable momentum. Integration of these efforts with the national planning process has been facilitated by: (1) the mutual involvement of state and federal staff in both processes; (2) the sharing of draft documents; (3) the ongoing occurrence of local and national co-ordinating meetings; (4) the provision of financial resources by the federal government. So far, approximately 12 states either have drafted or begun drafting a state and local influenza pandemic plan. One of the benefits of the collaborative planning process has been the development of new working relationships and partnerships among several agencies at the state, local and national levels. Such efforts will improve our collective ability to rapidly investigate and control other emerging or re-emerging public health threats in the 21st century, be it a bioterrorist event, pandemic influenza, or any other catastrophic health event.