Selecting and Using the Appropriate Influenza Vaccine for Each Individual.

Despite seasonal influenza vaccines having been routinely used for many decades, influenza A virus continues to pose a global threat to humans, causing high morbidity and mortality each year. The effectiveness of the vaccine is largely dependent on how well matched the vaccine strains are with the circulating influenza virus strains. Furthermore, low vaccine efficacy in naïve populations such as young children, or in the elderly, who possess weakened immune systems, indicates that influenza vaccines need to be more personalized to provide broader community protection. Advances in both vaccine technologies and our understanding of influenza virus infection and immunity have led to the design of a variety of alternate vaccine strategies to extend population protection against influenza, some of which are now in use. In this review, we summarize the progress in the field of influenza vaccines, including the advantages and disadvantages of different strategies, and discuss future prospects. We also highlight some of the challenges to be faced in the ongoing effort to control influenza through vaccination.

Factors driving choices between types and brands of influenza vaccines in general practice in Austria, Italy, Spain and the UK.

Influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) assessment is increasingly stratified by vaccine type or brand, such as done by the European network of DRIVE. In 2019/2020, eleven influenza vaccines were licensed in Europe. If more than one vaccine type is recommended or if more than one vaccine brand is available for a specific risk group, it is not clear which factors affect the choice of a specific vaccine (type or brand) by a health practitioner for individual patients. This is important for IVE assessment. A survey tailored to the 2019/20 local vaccine recommendations was conducted among GPs in four European countries (Austria, Italy, Spain, UK) to understand how influenza vaccine is offered to recommended risk groups and, if GPs have a choice between 2 or more vaccines, what factors influence their vaccine choice for patients. Overall, 360 GPs participated. In Austria, Italy and Spain GPs indicated that influenza vaccines are commonly offered when patients present for consultation, whereas in the UK all GPs indicated that all relevant patients are contacted by letter. In Austria and Italy, roughly 80% of GPs had only one vaccine type available for patients <65y. The use of any specific vaccine type in this age group is mostly determined by the availability of specific vaccine type(s) at the clinic. GPs frequently reported availability of more than one vaccine type for patients ≥65y in Austria (45%), Italy (70%) and Spain (79%). In this group, patient characteristics played a role in choice of vaccine, notably older age and presence of (multiple) comorbidities. Knowing that a non-patient related factor usually determines the vaccine type a patient receives in settings where more than one vaccine type is recommended for risk groups <65y, simplifies IVE assessment in this age group. However, patient characteristics need careful consideration when assessing IVE in those ≥65y.

Adverse events of interest vary by influenza vaccine type and brand: Sentinel network study of eight seasons (2010-2018).

BACKGROUND: Influenza contributes significantly to the burden of disease worldwide; the United Kingdom has a policy of vaccination across all ages. Influenza vaccinations are known to be associated with common minor adverse events of interest (AEIs). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommends ongoing surveillance of AEIs following influenza vaccination to monitor common and detect infrequent but important AEIs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using computerised medical record data from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network database 2010-2018 (N = 848,375). We extracted data about vaccine exposure (n = 3,121,334) and consultations for AEIs within seven days of receiving vaccinations specified by the EMA (1,488,870 consultations by 430,029 unique individuals). We used a self-case series design which employs a likelihood estimation method using conditioning of observed adverse events. Such a model assumes non-homogenous Poisson intensity processes for each exposure period and age interval. We compared AEI between QIV and TIV reporting relative incidence (RI) of AEIs. A RI < 1 signified lower AEI rate compared to TIV. RESULTS: QIV was associated with a RI of AEIs of 1.14 (95%CI, 1.10-1.18, p < 0.01), though the number of years exposure was limited. By way of contrast, LAIV had a lower rate 0.60 (95%CI 0.63-0.68, p < 0.001). Cellular manufacture was also associated with a lower rate 0.78 (95%CI 0.61-0.99, p = 0.04). AEIs varied by season: Rash and musculoskeletal conditions are particularly pronounced in the 2014/15 season and respiratory conditions in 2016/17. In an analysis of all seasons, we found an elevated relative incidence of AEIs of 1.78 (95%CI, 1.62-1.95) in pregnant women and 1.76 (95%CI, 1.56 - 1.99) in children under 5 years. CONCLUSION: Routine sentinel network data can be used to contrast AEIs between vaccine types and may provide a consistent method of observation of vaccine benefit-risk over time.

Symptoms associated with influenza vaccination and experimental human pneumococcal colonisation of the nasopharynx.

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal colonisation by S. pneumoniae is a prerequisite for invasive pneumococcal infections. Influenza co-infection leads to increased susceptibility to secondary pneumonia and mortality during influenza epidemics. Increased bacterial load and impaired immune responses to pneumococcus caused by influenza play a role in this increased susceptibility. Using an Experimental Human Challenge Model and influenza vaccines, we examined symptoms experienced by healthy adults during nasal co-infection with S. pneumoniae and live attenuated influenza virus. METHODS: Randomised, blinded administration of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) or Tetravalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (TIV) either preceded bacterial inoculation or followed it, separated by a 3-day interval. The presence and density of S. pneumoniae was determined from nasal washes. Participants completed a symptom questionnaire from the first intervention until 6 days post second intervention. RESULTS: The timing and type of influenza vaccination and presence of S. pneumoniae in the nasopharynx significantly affected symptom reporting. In the study where influenza vaccination preceded bacterial inoculation: nasal symptoms were less common in the LAIV group than the TIV group (OR 0.57, p < 0.01); with colonisation status only affecting the TIV group where more symptoms were reported by colonised participants compared to non-colonised participants following inoculation (n = 12/23 [52.17%] vs n = 13/38 [34.21%], respectively; p < 0.05). In the study where influenza vaccination followed bacterial inoculation: no difference was seen in the symptoms reported between the LAIV and TIV groups following inoculation and subsequent vaccination; and symptoms were unaffected by colonisation status. CONCLUSION: Symptoms experienced during live viral vaccination and bacterial co-infection in the nasopharynx are directly affected by the precedence of the pathogen acquisition. Symptoms were directly affected by nasal pneumococcal colonisation but only when TIV was given prior to bacterial exposure.

Fc functional antibody responses to adjuvanted versus unadjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccination in community-dwelling older adults.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza vaccination with a standard trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) induces a modest, and cross-reactive, Fc functional antibody response in older adults. Recent improvements to influenza vaccines include a quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) and a TIV adjuvanted with the squalene-based oil-in-water emulsion MF59. METHODS: Pre- and post-vaccination serum samples from older adults vaccinated with QIV (n = 27) and adjuvanted TIV (n = 44) were studied using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assays and dimeric Fc-gamma receptor IIIa binding ELISAs, as a surrogate of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). RESULTS: We found that the unadjuvanted QIV elicited a stronger HAI response against the H1N1 vaccine virus than the adjuvanted TIV. Post-vaccination levels of HA-specific ADCC antibodies were similar for older adults vaccinated with QIV and adjuvanted TIV. The ADCC response to influenza vaccination was largely determined by pre-vaccination or baseline levels of these antibodies, with older adults with low baseline levels of ADCC activity demonstrating greater post-vaccination rises. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of community-dwelling older adults, the QIV was at least as good as the adjuvanted TIV in the induction of ADCC and HAI responses. Further studies on how these antibody responses translate to efficacy in preventing influenza infections are warranted.

Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent and tetravalent influenza vaccines in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents are susceptible to influenza. Vaccination is the most important strategy for preventing influenza, yet there are few studies on the immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (QIV) containing two A strains (H1N1 and H3N2) and two B lineages (Victoria and Yamagata). Therefore, to further clarify the immunogenicity and safety of QIV in children and adolescents, a meta-analysis was performed to provide a reference for the development of influenza prevention strategies. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published as of February 12, 2019. Random clinical trials comparing the immunogenicity and safety of QIV and TIV among children and adolescents were selected. The main outcomes were comparisons of immunogenicity (seroprotection rate [SPR] and seroconversion rate [SCR] and adverse events using risk ratios (RRs). The meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. RESULTS: Among the 6 months up to 3 years group, QIV showed a higher SPR for B lineages than for TIV-B/Yamagata, with pooled RRs of 3.07 (95% CI: 2.58-3.66) and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01-1.11), respectively. For the 3 years through 18 years, QIV had a higher SCR and SPR for the Yamagata lineage than for TIV-B/Victoria, with pooled RRs of 2.30 (95% CI: 1.83-2.88) and 1.16 (95% CI: 1.03-1.30), respectively. Compared to TIV-B/Yamagata, a higher SCR and SPR for the Victoria lineage was found for QIV, with RRs of 3.09 (95% CI: 1.99-4.78) and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.22-2.41), respectively. Regarding adverse events, only pain was more frequently reported for QIV than TIV ; the RR was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.02-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity of QIV for common ingredients was similar to that of TIV, but the former exhibited significantly higher immunogenicity for the unique lineage. QIV also had the same reliable safety as TIV.

Quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine: clinical outcomes in two influenza seasons, historical cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) contains two influenza B antigens (one of each B lineage), while the trivalent vaccine (TIV) contains solely one. As a result, a mismatch between the circulating B lineage and the lineage in the TIV occurs frequently. We aimed to compare the frequency of clinically significant outcomes in a large cohort of vaccinees receiving either TIV or QIV. METHODS: Historical cohort study of all inactivated influenza vaccinees (aged 3 years and older) in a Health Maintenance Organization insuring 1.2 million individuals, over two influenza seasons in which both vaccines were provided non-selectively. Primary outcome was hospital admissions during the influenza season. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression to adjust for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Our cohort included 150 518 and 168 296 vaccinees in the first (S1) and second season (S2), respectively. The two influenza seasons were characterized by high Influenza B activity. Of those vaccinated with QIV, 2074 of 49 726 (4.2%) and 6563 of 121 741 (5.4%) were hospitalized compared with 7378 of 100 792 (7.3%) and 3372 of 46 555 (7.2%) of those vaccinated with TIV (S1 and S2, respectively). After multivariate analysis adjusting for several covariates (gender, age, socioeconomic status, chronic morbidity, timing of vaccination), compared with TIV recipients, QIV vaccinees had lower odds for hospitalization (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98 and OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.85-0.93) or emergency department visit (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95 and OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.81-0.87) in S1 and S2, respectively (p < 0.001). Lower odds of mortality and influenza-like illness were also observed in S2 (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.50-0.75 and OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.90-0.95, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In seasons with relatively high influenza B activity, QIV appeared more protective than TIV in Israel.

Constrained Optimization for the Selection of Influenza Vaccines to Maximize the Population Benefit: A Demonstration Project.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is an infectious disease causing a high annual economic and public health burden. The most efficient management of the disease is through prevention with vaccination. Many influenza vaccines are available, with varying efficacy and cost, targeting different age groups. Therefore, strategic decision-making about which vaccine to deliver to whom is warranted to improve efficiency. OBJECTIVE: We present the use of a constrained optimization (CO) model to evaluate targeted strategies for providing influenza vaccines in three adult age groups in the USA. METHODS: CO was considered for identifying an influenza vaccine provision strategy that maximizes the benefits at constrained annual budgets, by prioritizing vaccines based on return on investment. The approach optimizes a set of predefined outcome measures over several years resulting from an increasing investment using the best combination of influenza vaccines. RESULTS: Results indicate the importance of understanding the relative differences in benefits for each vaccine type within and across age groups. Scenario and threshold analyses demonstrate the impact of changing budget distribution over time, price setting per vaccine type, and selection of outcome measure to optimize. CONCLUSION: Significant gains in cost efficiency can be realized for a decision maker using a CO model, especially for a disease like influenza with many vaccine options. Testing the model under different scenarios offers powerful insights into maximum achievable benefit overall and per age group within the predefined constraints of a vaccine budget.

Association between vaccine adjuvant effect and pre-seasonal immunity. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised immunogenicity trials comparing squalene-adjuvanted and aqueous inactivated influenza vaccines.

The immunogenicity benefit of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) adjuvanted by squalene over non-adjuvanted aqueous IIV was explored in a meta-analysis involving 49 randomised trials published between 1999 and 2017, and 22,470 eligible persons of all age classes. Most vaccines contained 15 µg viral haemagglutinin per strain. Adjuvanted IIV mostly contained 9.75 mg squalene per dose. Homologous pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titres (GMTs) of haemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibody were recorded for 290 single influenza (sub-)type arms. The adjuvant effect was expressed as the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs between squalene-IIV and aqueous IIV (GMTR, 145 estimates). GMTRs > 1.0 favoured squalene-IIV over aqueous IIV. For all influenza (sub-)types, the adjuvant effect proved negatively associated with pre-vaccination GMT and mean age. The adjuvant effect appeared most pronounced in young children (mean age < 2.5 years) showing an average GMTR of 3.7 (95% CI: 2.5 to 5.5). With increasing age, GMTR values gradually decreased towards 1.4 (95% CI: 1.0 to 1.9) in older adults. Heterologous antibody titrations simulating mismatch between vaccine and circulating virus (30 GMTR estimates) again showed a larger adjuvant effect at young age. GMT values and their variances were converted to antibody-predicted protection rates using an evidence-based clinical protection curve. The adjuvant effect was expressed as the protection rate differences, which showed similar age patterns as corresponding GMTR values. However for influenza B, the adjuvant effect lasted longer than for influenza A, possibly due to a generally later influenza B virus exposure. Collectively, this meta-analysis indicates the highest benefit of squalene-IIV over aqueous IIV in young children and decreasing benefit with progressing age. This trend is similar for seasonal influenza (sub-)types and the 2009 pandemic strain, by both homologous and heterologous titration. The impact of pre-seasonal immunity on vaccine effectiveness, and its implications for age-specific vaccination recommendations, are discussed.

Cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine for elderly population in China.

BACKGROUND: Influenza-associated excess death occurred most in the elderly. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) versus trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) for prevention of influenza infection among elderly population in China. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare 1-year clinical and economic outcomes of three influenza vaccination options (no vaccination, TIV, and QIV) in a hypothetical cohort of Chinese elderly aged 69 years. Outcome measures included cost, influenza infection rate, influenza-related mortality rate, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) loss, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the uncertainty of model inputs. RESULTS: Base-case results showed no vaccination was dominated (more costly at higher QALY loss) by TIV and QIV. QIV was more costly (USD56.29 versus USD54.28) with lower influenza infection rate (0.608 versus 0.623), mortality rate (0.00199 versus 0.00204), and QALY loss (0.01213 versus 0.01243) than TIV. QIV was cost-effective compared to TIV with ICER of 6,700 USD/QALY below the willingness-to-pay threshold (29,580 USD/QALY). One-way sensitivity analysis found the cost-effectiveness of QIV was subject to the relative risk of vaccine effectiveness of QIV versus TIV, and TIV would be cost-effective if the relative risk was below 1.05. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, the probabilities of QIV, TIV, and no vaccination to be cost-effective were 86.3%, 13.7%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: QIV appears to be a cost-effective option compared to TIV and no influenza vaccination for elderly population in China.

Post-licensure surveillance of trivalent adjuvanted influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad), Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), United States, July 2016-June 2018.

BACKGROUND: Trivalent adjuvanted influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad®) was approved in the United States (U.S.) in 2015 for adults aged ≥65 years and has been in use since the 2016-17 influenza season. METHODS: We analyzed U.S. reports for aIIV3 submitted from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national spontaneous reporting system. Medical records were reviewed for serious reports. Among individuals ≥65 years of age, the relative frequency of the most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) after aIIV3 were compared with non-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccines given to adults aged ≥65 years, high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) and trivalent or quadrivalent vaccines (IIV3/IIV4). Data mining analyses were undertaken to identify whether AEs for aIIV3 occurred disproportionately more than expected compared to all influenza vaccines. RESULTS: VAERS received 630 reports after aIIV3, of which 521 (83%) were in adults aged ≥65 years; 79 (13%) in persons <65 years and in 30 (5%) reports age was missing; 19 (3%) reports were serious, including two deaths (0.4%) related to myocardial infarction and Sjogren's syndrome. The most common AEs reported in adults aged ≥65 years were injection site pain (21%) and erythema (18%), with similar proportions reported for IIV3-HD (17% and 19%, respectively) and for IIV3/IIV4 (15%, each). Except for reports related to vaccination of inappropriate age (n = 79) and syringe malfunction (n = 6), data mining did not identify other disproportionately reported AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Although our review of aIIV3 in VAERS did not identify any unexpected health conditions of concern, we observed more than twice the expected number of reports with administration of the vaccine to persons outside of the age range for which the vaccine is approved in the U.S. Health care providers should be educated on the age groups for whom aIIV3 is recommended.

Canadian older adults' perceptions of effectiveness and value of regular and high-dose influenza vaccines.

Influenza vaccination is an important public health intervention for older adults, yet vaccination rates remain suboptimal. We conducted an online survey of Canadians ≥ 65 years to explore satisfaction with publicly-funded standard-dose influenza vaccines, and perceptions of the need for a more effective product. They were provided with information about currently approved influenza vaccines, and were asked about their preferences should all formulations be available for free, and should the recently approved high-dose (HD) vaccine for seniors be available at a cost. From March to April 2017, 5014 seniors completed the survey; mean age was 71.3 ± 5.17 years, 50% were female, and 42.6% had one or more chronic conditions. 3403 (67.9%) had been vaccinated against influenza in the 2016/17 season. Of all respondents, 3460 (69%) were satisfied with the standard-dose influenza vaccines, yet 3067 (61.1%) thought that a more effective vaccine was/may be needed. If HD was only available at a cost, 1426 (28.4%) respondents would consider it, of whom 62.9% would pay $20 or less. If all vaccines were free next season, 1914 (38.2%) would opt for HD (including 12.2% of those who previously rejected influenza vaccines), 856 (17.1%) would choose adjuvanted vaccine, and 558 (11.1%) standard-dose vaccine. 843 (16.8%) of respondents were against vaccines, 451 (9.0%) had no preference and 392 (7.8%) were uncertain. Making this product available through publicly funded programs may be a strategy to increase immunization rates in this population.

Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Impact on Pandemic H1N1 Vaccine Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, a novel influenza A (pH1N1) was identified, resulting in a pandemic with significant morbidity and mortality. A monovalent pH1N1 vaccine was separately produced in addition to the seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine. Formulation of the seasonal influenza vaccine (injectable trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine [TIV] vs. intranasal live, attenuated influenza vaccine [LAIV]) was postulated to have impacted the efficacy of the pH1N1 vaccination. METHODS: We reviewed electronic health and databases, which included vaccination records, and healthcare encounters for influenza-like illness (ILI), influenza, and pneumonia among US military members. We examined rates by vaccination type to identify factors associated with the risk for study outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with those receiving the seasonal influenza vaccine alone, subjects receiving the pH1N1 vaccine, either alone (RR, 0.49) or in addition to the seasonal vaccine (RR, 0.51), had an approximately 50% reduction in ILI, 88% reduction in influenza (RR, 0.11 and 0.12, respectively), and 63% reduction in pneumonia (RR, 0.37 and 0.35, respectively). There was no clinically significant difference in ILI, influenza, or pneumonia attack rates among those receiving the pH1N1 vaccine with or without presence of the seasonal vaccine. Similarly, there was no clinically relevant difference in pH1N1 effectiveness between seasonal TIV and LAIV recipients. CONCLUSIONS: During the 2009-2010 pandemic, the pH1N1 vaccination was effective in reducing rates of ILI, influenza, and pneumonia. Administration of the seasonal vaccine should continue without concern of potential interference with a novel pandemic vaccine, though more studies are needed to determine if this is applicable to other influenza seasons.

Influenza vaccination of elderly: relaunch time.

Influenza can be a serious disease and constitutes a threat to the population. Every year, seasonal influenza epidemics affect about 5-15% of the world's population. Some frail categories (such as the elderly) can develop complications, request hospitalization, and may die. In order to reduce the medical, social and economic burden of influenza, vaccination is recommended by many health authorities worldwide. Italy has a national programme of influenza vaccination which targets specific categories, such as subjects with chronic conditions, pregnant women, healthcare workers and those over 65 years old. Despite this opportunity for prevention, however, vaccination coverage in Italy does not reach the minimum recommended threshold of 75%. This paper reports some interventions that can improve coverage rates of the elderly, such as "tailor-made" information campaigns, healthcare workers training and the adoption of innovative communication strategies in order to implement vaccination strategies that take into account the needs of the elderly population, the involvement of elderly people's associations in awareness-raising activities and strengthening the role of general practitioners in promoting influenza vaccination.

A Phase III randomised trial of the immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent versus trivalent inactivated subunit influenza vaccine in adult and elderly subjects, assessing both anti-haemagglutinin and virus neutralisation antibody responses.

BACKGROUND: Trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs) offer substantial protection against matching B-strains, however, protection against alternate-lineage B-strains may be enhanced by adding a second B-strain in quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVs). In this Phase III, double-blind, multicentre, randomised study, the immunogenicity and safety of subunit inactivated QIV versus TIV was assessed in adult (aged ≥18 to ≤60 years) and elderly (aged ≥61 years) subjects by analysing a combination of haemagglutinin inhibition (HI) and virus neutralisation (VN). METHODS: Subjects (n = 1980) were recruited off season (2015/2016) from 20 centres in five European countries and randomised to receive either QIV (n = 1538), TIV with B-strain of the Victoria lineage (n = 221) or TIV with B-strain of the Yamagata lineage (n = 221). The primary aim was to demonstrate non-inferiority of QIV to TIV for immunogenicity against matched influenza strains based on post-vaccination HI titres. Secondary aims were to show superiority of QIV to TIV for immunogenicity against alternate-lineage B-strains and to characterise the immune response by reverse cumulative distribution (RCD) curves of antibody titres and derived serological parameters for HI and VN. Reactogenicity and occurrence of adverse events were assessed post-vaccination. RESULTS: QIV elicited a non-inferior immune response for matched strains (upper limit of 95% CI for HI geometric mean ratios [GMRs] <1.5) and a superior response for alternate-lineage B-strains (HI GMRs < 1; p < 0.0001) versus TIV. RCD curves demonstrated that post-vaccination HI and VN titres were higher for QIV versus TIV for both alternate-lineage B-strains. Seroconversion rates and geometric mean fold increases of the VN assay were consistent with the HI assay for all strains in QIV. Reporting rates of local and systemic reactions were similar in both vaccine groups. CONCLUSIONS: QIV was non-inferior in immunogenicity to TIV for matched strains and superior to the alternate-lineage B-strains in TIV. Safety and tolerability profiles of QIV and TIV were comparable.

Conventional influenza vaccines influence the performance of a universal influenza vaccine in mice.

Universal influenza vaccines are designed to protect against diverse strains of influenza virus. Preclinical testing of new vaccine candidates is usually done in naïve animals, despite intended use in the human population with its varied immune history including responses to previous vaccinations. As an approach more relevant to human use, we tested a candidate universal influenza vaccine in mice with a history of conventional vaccination. Female BALB/c mice were given two intramuscular doses of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) or diphtheria and tetanus toxoids vaccine (DT), one month apart. Another group was given two intranasal doses of live attenuated influenza virus (LAIV). One month after the second dose, mice were given the universal influenza vaccine: recombinant adenoviruses expressing influenza A nucleoprotein (A/NP) and matrix 2 (M2) (A/NP + M2-rAd). Immune responses to universal vaccine antigens A/NP and M2 were assessed by ELISA and interferon-γ ELISPOT. Protection was tested by challenge with mouse-adapted A/FM/1/47 (H1N1) and monitoring for weight loss and survival. Universal vaccine performance was enhanced, inhibited or unaffected by particular prior vaccinations. Mice given Afluria IIV and LAIV had greater antibody and T-cell response to A/NP than mice without prior vaccination, providing examples of enhanced A/NP + M2-rAd performance. Though Fluvirin IIV partially inhibited, the universal vaccine still provided considerable protection unlike conventional vaccination. Fluzone IIV and DT had no effect on A/NP + M2-rAd performance. Thus our results demonstrate that universal vaccine candidate A/NP + M2-rAd was at least partially effective in mice with diverse prior histories. However, the degree of protection and nature of the immune responses may be affected by a history of conventional vaccination and suggests that performance in humans would be influenced by immune history.

A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza infection: vaccine inefficiency.

The last influenza pandemic, caused by the swine A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus, began in North America at 2009. Since then, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended integration of the swine-based virus A/California/07/2009 strain in yearly vaccinations. Yet, infections with A(H1N1)pdm09 have continued in subsequent years. The reasons for this are currently unknown. During the 2015-2016 influenza season, we noted an increased prevalence of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus infection in Israel. Our phylogenetic analysis indicated that the circulating A(H1N1)pdm09 strains belonged to 6B.1 and 6B.2 clades and differed from the vaccinating strain, with approximately 18 amino acid differences found between the circulating strains and the immunizing A/California/07/2009 strain. Hemmaglutination inhibition (HI) assays demonstrated higher antibodies titer against the A/California/07/2009 vaccinating strain as compared to the circulating Israeli strains. We thus suggest that the current vaccination was not sufficiently effective and propose inclusion of the current circulating A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza viruses in the annual vaccine composition.

Cost-Effectiveness and Public Health Effect of Influenza Vaccine Strategies for U.S. Elderly Adults.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of four influenza vaccines available in the United States for persons aged 65 and older: trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3), quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4), a more-expensive high-dose IIV3, and a newly approved adjuvanted IIV3. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and sensitivity analyses. SETTING: A hypothetical influenza vaccination season modeled according to possible U.S. influenza vaccination policies. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of individuals aged 65 and older in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Cost-effectiveness and public health benefits of available influenza vaccination strategies in U.S. elderly adults. RESULTS: IIV3 cost $3,690 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, IIV4 cost $20,939 more than IIV3 per QALY gained, and high-dose IIV3 cost $31,214 more per QALY than IIV4. The model projected 83,775 fewer influenza cases and 980 fewer deaths with high-dose IIV3 than with the next most-effective vaccine: IIV4. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, high-dose IIV3 was the favored strategy if willingness to pay is $25,000 or more per QALY gained. Adjuvanted IIV3 cost-effectiveness depends on its price and effectiveness (neither yet determined in the United States) but could be favored if its relative effectiveness is 15% greater than that of IIV3. CONCLUSION: From economic and public health standpoints, high-dose IIV3 for adults aged 65 years and older is likely to be favored over the other vaccines, based on currently available data. The cost-effectiveness of adjuvanted IIV3 should be reviewed after its effectiveness has been compared with that of other vaccines and its U.S. price is established.

Vacunación antigripal. Efectividad de las vacunas actuales y retos de futuro / Influenza vaccination. Effectiveness of current vaccines and future challenges

La gripe estacional supone un desafío anual para los sistemas sanitarios debido a factores como la cocirculación de 2 subtipos de gripe A junto con otros 2 linajes de gripe B, la variación antigénica de estos virus, que escapan a la inmunidad natural y a la conferida por las vacunas, sumados al impacto que produce la gripe en la morbimortalidad. Las vacunas frente a la gripe están disponibles desde hace más de 70 años y han ido evolucionando en su formulación, fabricación y administración. Las recomendaciones de vacunación se centran en las personas con mayor probabilidad de enfermedad grave y son recomendaciones progresivamente más amplias, clásicamente basadas en las vacunas inactivadas, pero con una importancia creciente de vacunas vivas atenuadas. Entre las vacunas inactivadas van estando disponibles mejoras desde las vacunas adyuvadas y virosomales a las de administración intradérmica, de cultivo celular o las tetravalentes. La efectividad vacunal globalmente es del 65%, pero varía en función de las características de la vacuna, del virus, de la población y del objetivo que se persigue prevenir, yendo desde menos del 10% hasta casi el 90%. Los retos futuros son formulaciones que confieran una protección más extensa y duradera, así como el incremento de coberturas vacunales, especialmente en grupos como embarazadas y sanitarios o la población pediátrica

Seasonal influenza is an annual challenge for health-care systems, due to factors such as co-circulation of 2 influenza A subtypes jointly with 2 influenza B lineages; the antigenic drift of these virus, which eludes natural immunity, as well as immunity conferred by vaccination; together with influenza impact in terms of morbidity and mortality. Influenza vaccines have been available for more than 70 years and they have progressed in formulation, production and delivery route. Recommendations on vaccination are focused on those with a higher probability of severe disease, and have a progressively wider coverage, and classically based on inactivated vaccines, but with an increasing importance of attenuated live vaccines. More inactivated vaccines are becoming available, from adyuvanted and virosomal vaccines to intradermal delivery, cell-culture or quadrivalent. Overall vaccine effectiveness is about 65%, but varies depending on characteristics of vaccines, virus, population and the outcomes to be prevented, and ranges from less than 10% to almost 90%. Future challenges are formulations that confer more extensive and lasting protection, as well as increased vaccination coverage, especially in groups such as pregnant women and health-care professionals, as well as being extended to paediatrics