Relative and Absolute Effectiveness of High-Dose and Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine Against Influenza-Related Hospitalization Among Older Adults-United States, 2015-2017.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza causes substantial morbidity and mortality in older adults. High-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV), with increased antigen content compared to standard-dose influenza vaccines (SD-IIV), is licensed for use in people aged ≥65 years. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of HD-IIV and SD-IIV for prevention of influenza-associated hospitalizations. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with acute respiratory illness were enrolled in an observational vaccine effectiveness study at 8 hospitals in the United States Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 influenza seasons. Enrolled patients were tested for influenza, and receipt of influenza vaccine by type was recorded. Effectiveness of SD-IIV and HD-IIV was estimated using a test-negative design (comparing odds of influenza among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients). Relative effectiveness of SD-IIV and HD-IIV was estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1487 enrolled patients aged ≥65 years, 1107 (74%) were vaccinated; 622 (56%) received HD-IIV, and 485 (44%) received SD-IIV. Overall, 277 (19%) tested positive for influenza, including 98 (16%) who received HD-IIV, 87 (18%) who received SD-IIV, and 92 (24%) who were unvaccinated. After adjusting for confounding variables, effectiveness of SD-IIV was 6% (95% confidence interval [CI] -42%, 38%) and that of HD-IIV was 32% (95% CI -3%, 54%), for a relative effectiveness of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV of 27% (95% CI -1%, 48%). CONCLUSIONS: During 2 US influenza seasons, vaccine effectiveness was low to moderate for prevention of influenza hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. High-dose vaccine offered greater effectiveness. None of these findings were statistically significant.

Priming with MF59 adjuvanted versus nonadjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines in children - A systematic review and a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Identifying optimal priming strategies for children <2 years could substantially improve the public health benefits of influenza vaccines. Adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines were designed to promote a better immune response among young vaccine-naïve children. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized trials to assess hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody response to MF59-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV) versus nonadjuvanted IIV among children. We estimated pooled ratios of post-vaccination HAI geometric mean titer (GMT) for aIIV versus IIV and confidence intervals (CIs) using the pooled variances derived from reported CIs. RESULTS: Mean age was 28 months (range, 6-72 months). Children received vaccines with either 7.5 µg (6-35 months) or 15 µg (≥36 months) hemagglutinin of each strain depending on age. Seven of eight trials administered trivalent vaccines and one used quadrivalent vaccine. Pooled post-vaccination GMT ratios against the three influenza vaccine strains were 2.5-3.5 fold higher after 2-dose-aIIV versus 2-dose-IIV among children 6-72 months, and point estimates were higher among children 6-35 months compared with older children. When comparing 1-dose-aIIV to 2-dose-IIV doses, pooled GMT ratios were not significantly different against A/H1N1 (1.0; 95% CI: 0.5-1.8; p = 0.90) and A/H3N2 viruses (1.0; 95% CI: 0.7-1.5; p = 0.81) and were significantly lower against B viruses (0.6; 95% CI: 0.4-0.8; p < 0.001) for both age groups. Notably, GMT ratios for vaccine-mismatched heterologous viruses after 2-dose-aIIV compared with 2-dose-IIV were higher against A/H1N1 (2.0; 95% CI: 1.1-3.4), A/H3N2 (2.9; 95% CI: 1.9-4.2), and B-lineage viruses (2.1; 95% CI: 1.8-2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of adjuvanted IIV consistently induced better humoral immune responses against Type A and B influenza viruses compared with nonadjuvanted IIVs in young children, particularly among those 6-35 months. One adjuvanted IIV dose had a similar response to two nonadjuvanted IIV doses against Type A influenza viruses. Longer-term benefits from imprinting and cell-mediated immunity, including trials of clinical efficacy, are gaps that warrant investigation.

Standard-Dose Intradermal Influenza Vaccine Elicits Cellular Immune Responses Similar to Those of Intramuscular Vaccine in Men With and Those Without HIV Infection.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected persons are at a higher risk of severe influenza. Although we have shown that a standard-dose intradermal influenza vaccine versus a standard-dose intramuscular influenza vaccine does not result in differences in hemagglutination-inhibition titers in this population, a comprehensive examination of cell-mediated immune responses remains lacking. METHODS: Serological, antigen-specific B-cell, and interleukin 2-, interferon γ-, and tumor necrosis factor α-secreting T-cell responses were assessed in 79 HIV-infected men and 79 HIV-uninfected men. RESULTS: The route of vaccination did not affect the immunoglobulin A and immunoglobulin G (IgG) plasmablast or memory B-cell response, although these were severely impaired in the group with a CD4+ T-cell count of <200 cells/µL. The frequencies of IgG memory B cells measured on day 28 after vaccination were highest in the HIV-uninfected group, followed by the group with a CD4+ T-cell count of ≥200 cells/µL and the group with a CD4+ T-cell count of <200 cells/µL. The route of vaccination did not affect the CD4+ or CD8+ T-cell responses measured at various times after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The route of vaccination had no effect on antibody responses, antibody avidity, T-cell responses, or B-cell responses in HIV-infected or HIV-uninfected subjects. With the serological and cellular immune responses to influenza vaccination being impaired in HIV-infected individuals with a CD4+ T-cell count of <200 cells/µL, passive immunization strategies need to be explored to protect this population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01538940.

Birth Cohort Effects in Influenza Surveillance Data: Evidence That First Influenza Infection Affects Later Influenza-Associated Illness.

BACKGROUND: The evolution of influenza A viruses results in birth cohorts that have different initial influenza virus exposures. Historically, A/H3 predominant seasons have been associated with more severe influenza-associated disease; however, since the 2009 pandemic, there are suggestions that some birth cohorts experience more severe illness in A/H1 predominant seasons. METHODS: United States influenza virologic, hospitalization, and mortality surveillance data during 2000-2017 were analyzed for cohorts born between 1918 and 1989 that likely had different initial influenza virus exposures based on viruses circulating during early childhood. Relative risk/rate during H3 compared with H1 predominant seasons during prepandemic versus pandemic and later periods were calculated for each cohort. RESULTS: During the prepandemic period, all cohorts had more influenza-associated disease during H3 predominant seasons than H1 predominant seasons. During the pandemic and later period, 4 cohorts had higher hospitalization and mortality rates during H1 predominant seasons than H3 predominant seasons. CONCLUSIONS: Birth cohort differences in risk of influenza-associated disease by influenza A virus subtype can be seen in US influenza surveillance data and differ between prepandemic and pandemic and later periods. As the population ages, the amount of influenza-associated disease may be greater in future H1 predominant seasons than H3 predominant seasons.

Comparative effects of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition, statin or ezetimibe on lipid factors: The ACCENTUATE trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal approaches to management of patients treated with moderate statin doses on lipid parameters are unknown. The ACCENTUATE study aimed to compare the effects of adding the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor (CETP) evacetrapib, ezetimibe or increasing statin dose in atorvastatin-treated high-vascular risk patients on lipid parameters. METHODS: 366 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or diabetes were treated with atorvastatin 40 mg/day for 28 days prior to randomization to atorvastatin 40 mg plus evacetrapib 130 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg, atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg plus placebo, daily for 90 days at 64 centers in the United States. Lipid parameters, safety and tolerability were measured. RESULTS: Addition of evacetrapib significantly reduced LDL-C (-33%) compared with ezetimibe (-27%, p=0.045), increasing statin dose (-6%) and statin alone (0%, p<0.001). Evacetrapib also decreased apoB by 23% compared to 19% with ezetimibe (p=0.06) and 7% with increased statin dose (p<0.001), and reduced Lp(a) by 29% (p<0.001 vs. other groups). Evacetrapib increased HDL-C (+125%), apoA-I (+46%), apoC-III (+50%) and apoE (+28%) (p<0.001 vs. other groups). Non-ABCA1-mediated efflux increased by 53% (p<0.001 vs. other groups) with evacetrapib. ABCA1-mediated efflux also increased by 13% with evacetrapib (p<0.001 vs. ezetimibe, p=0.002 vs. increasing statin dose, and p=0.004 vs. statin alone). Addition of evacetrapib to atorvastatin produced an increase in hsCRP compared with ezetimibe (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While evacetrapib improved traditional atherogenic and putative protective lipid measures compared with ezetimibe and increasing statin dose in patients with ASCVD and/or diabetes, it also adversely affected novel atherogenic risk factors. These findings may contribute to the lack of clinical benefit observed in the ACCELERATE trial.

Age effects on visual-perceptual processing and confrontation naming.

The impact of age-related changes in visual-perceptual processing on naming ability has not been reported. The present study investigated the effects of 6 levels of spatial frequency and 6 levels of contrast on accuracy and latency to name objects in 14 young and 13 older neurologically normal adults with intact lexical-semantic functioning. Spatial frequency and contrast manipulations were made independently. Consistent with the hypotheses, variations in these two visual parameters impact naming ability in young and older subjects differently. The results from the spatial frequency-manipulations revealed that, in general, young vs. older subjects are faster and more accurate to name. However, this age-related difference is dependent on the spatial frequency on the image; differences were only seen for images presented at low (e.g., 0.25-1 c/deg) or high (e.g., 8-16 c/deg) spatial frequencies. Contrary to predictions, the results from the contrast manipulations revealed that overall older vs. young adults are more accurate to name. Again, however, differences were only seen for images presented at the lower levels of contrast (i.e., 1.25%). Both age groups had shorter latencies on the second exposure of the contrast-manipulated images, but this possible advantage of exposure was not seen for spatial frequency. Category analyses conducted on the data from this study indicate that older vs. young adults exhibit a stronger nonliving-object advantage for naming spatial frequency-manipulated images. Moreover, the findings suggest that bottom-up visual-perceptual variables integrate with top-down category information in different ways. Potential implications on the aging and naming (and recognition) literature are discussed.