Effectiveness of the live attenuated and the inactivated influenza vaccine in two-year-olds - a nationwide cohort study Finland, influenza season 2015/16

Influenza Vaccination in Patients with Common Variable Immunodeficiency (CVID)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Vaccination against influenza in patients with primary antibody deficiency is recommended. Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is the most frequent and clinically relevant antibody deficiency disease and is by definition characterized by an impaired vaccination response. The purpose of this review is to present the current knowledge of humoral and cellular vaccine response to influenza in CVID patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies conducted in CVID patients demonstrated an impaired humoral response upon influenza vaccination. Data on cellular immune response are in part conflicting, with two out of three studies showing responses similar to healthy controls. Available data suggest a benefit from influenza vaccination in CVID patients. Therefore, annual influenza vaccination in patients and their close household contacts is recommended.

Comparison of mucosal lining fluid sampling methods and influenza-specific IgA detection assays for use in human studies of influenza immunity

We need greater understanding of the mechanisms underlying protection against influenza virus to develop more effective vaccines. To do this, we need better, more reproducible methods of sampling the nasal mucosa. The aim of the current study was to compare levels of influenza virus A subtype-specific IgA collected using three different methods of nasal sampling. Samples were collected from healthy adult volunteers before and after LAIV immunization by nasal wash, flocked swabs and Synthetic Absorptive Matrix (SAM) strips. Influenza A virus subtype-specific IgA levels were measured by haemagglutinin binding ELISA or haemagglutinin binding microarray and the functional response was assessed by microneutralization. Nasosorption using SAM strips lead to the recovery of a more concentrated sample of material, with a significantly higher level of total and influenza H1-specific IgA. However, an equivalent percentage of specific IgA was observed with all sampling methods when normalized to the total IgA. Responses measured using a recently developed antibody microarray platform, which allows evaluation of binding to multiple influenza strains simultaneously with small sample volumes, were compared to ELISA. There was a good correlation between ELISA and microarray values. Material recovered from SAM strips was weakly neutralizing when used in an in vitro assay, with a modest correlation between the level of IgA measured by ELISA and neutralization, but a greater correlation between microarray-measured IgA and neutralizing activity. In conclusion we have tested three different methods of nasal sampling and show that flocked swabs and novel SAM strips are appropriate alternatives to traditional nasal washes for assessment of mucosal influenza humoral immunity.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the United States during the 2015-2016 Season

BACKGROUND

The A(H1N1)pdm09 virus strain used in the live attenuated influenza vaccine was changed for the 2015-2016 influenza season because of its lack of effectiveness in young children in 2013-2014. The Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network evaluated the effect of this change as part of its estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in 2015-2016.

METHODS

We enrolled patients 6 months of age or older who presented with acute respiratory illness at ambulatory care clinics in geographically diverse U.S. sites. Using a test-negative design, we estimated vaccine effectiveness as (1-OR)×100, in which OR is the odds ratio for testing positive for influenza virus among vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants. Separate estimates were calculated for the inactivated vaccines and the live attenuated vaccine.

RESULTS

Among 6879 eligible participants, 1309 (19%) tested positive for influenza virus, predominantly for A(H1N1)pdm09 (11%) and influenza B (7%). The effectiveness of the influenza vaccine against any influenza illness was 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41 to 55; P<0.001). Among children 2 to 17 years of age, the inactivated influenza vaccine was 60% effective (95% CI, 47 to 70; P<0.001), and the live attenuated vaccine was not observed to be effective (vaccine effectiveness, 5%; 95% CI, -47 to 39; P=0.80). Vaccine effectiveness against A(H1N1)pdm09 among children was 63% (95% CI, 45 to 75; P<0.001) for the inactivated vaccine, as compared with -19% (95% CI, -113 to 33; P=0.55) for the live attenuated vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccines reduced the risk of influenza illness in 2015-2016. However, the live attenuated vaccine was found to be ineffective among children in a year with substantial inactivated vaccine effectiveness. Because the 2016-2017 A(H1N1)pdm09 strain used in the live attenuated vaccine was unchanged from 2015-2016, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices made an interim recommendation not to use the live attenuated influenza vaccine for the 2016-2017 influenza season. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.).

Urgent challenges in implementing live attenuated influenza vaccine

Conflicting reports have emerged about the effectiveness of the live attenuated influenza vaccine. The live attenuated influenza vaccine appears to protect particularly poorly against currently circulating H1N1 viruses that are derived from the 2009 pandemic H1N1 viruses. During the 2015-16 influenza season, when pandemic H1N1 was the predominant virus, studies from the USA reported a complete lack of effectiveness of the live vaccine in children. This finding led to a crucial decision in the USA to recommend that the live vaccine not be used in 2016-17 and to switch to the inactivated influenza vaccine. Other countries, including the UK, Canada, and Finland, however, have continued to recommend the use of the live vaccine. This policy divergence and uncertainty has far reaching implications for the entire global community, given the importance of the production capabilities of the live attenuated influenza vaccine for pandemic preparedness. In this Personal View, we discuss possible explanations for the observed reduced effectiveness of the live attenuated influenza vaccine and highlight the underpinning scientific questions. Further research to understand the reasons for these observations is essential to enable informed public health policy and commercial decisions about vaccine production and development in coming years.

Live-Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Children From 2009 to 2015-2016: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis describes and consolidates findings from all studies that assessed the effectiveness of live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) against laboratory-confirmed influenza since the 2009 pandemic in children and young adults.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted for articles published from January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2016. All original publications reporting an effectiveness estimate of LAIV against cases of influenza confirmed by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction or culture were retained for analysis. Effectiveness estimates were categorized by LAIV formulation (monovalent, trivalent, and quadrivalent) and strain (any influenza strain, A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2), and B strains). Consolidated estimates were obtained with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 24 publications presenting 29 observational studies were retained for meta-analysis. Live-attenuated influenza vaccine was not shown to be effective against A(H1N1)pdm09 strains as a monovalent formulation in 2009-2010 or as a trivalent formulation from 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, but consolidated sample sizes were small. It was effective as a quadrivalent formulation but less effective than inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV). Live-attenuated influenza vaccine was consistently effective against B strains and matched A(H3N2) strains but was not shown to provide significant protection against mismatched A(H3N2) strains in 2014-2015.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings confirm that effectiveness of LAIV against A(H1N1)pdm09 strains has been lower than IIV. A systematic investigation has been initiated to determine the root cause of the difference in effectiveness between pre- and postpandemic A(H1N1) vaccine strains and to identify a more consistently effective A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine strain.

Intranasal Administration of Whole Inactivated Influenza Virus Vaccine as a Promising Influenza Vaccine Candidate

The effect of the current influenza vaccine, an inactivated virus vaccine administered by subcutaneous/intramuscular injection, is limited to reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with seasonal influenza outbreaks. Intranasal vaccination, by contrast, mimics natural infection and induces not only systemic IgG antibodies but also local secretory IgA (S-IgA) antibodies found on the surface of the mucosal epithelium in the upper respiratory tract. S-IgA antibodies are highly effective at preventing virus infection. Although the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) administered intranasally can induce local antibodies, this vaccine is restricted to healthy populations aged 2-49 years because of safety concerns associated with using live viruses in a vaccine. Instead of LAIV, an intranasal vaccine made with inactivated virus could be applied to high-risk populations, including infants and elderly adults. Normally, a mucosal adjuvant would be required to enhance the effect of intranasal vaccination with an inactivated influenza vaccine. However, we found that intranasal administration of a concentrated, whole inactivated influenza virus vaccine without any mucosal adjuvant was enough to induce local neutralizing S-IgA antibodies in the nasal epithelium of healthy individuals with some immunological memory for seasonal influenza viruses. This intranasal vaccine is a novel candidate that could improve on the current injectable vaccine or the LAIV for the prevention of seasonal influenza epidemics.

Development of an objective gene expression panel as an alternative to self-reported symptom scores in human influenza challenge trials

Background

Influenza challenge trials are important for vaccine efficacy testing. Currently, disease severity is determined by self-reported scores to a list of symptoms which can be highly subjective. A more objective measure would allow for improved data analysis.

Methods

Twenty-one volunteers participated in an influenza challenge trial. We calculated the daily sum of scores (DSS) for a list of 16 influenza symptoms. Whole blood collected at baseline and 24, 48, 72 and 96 h post challenge was profiled on Illumina HT12v4 microarrays. Changes in gene expression most strongly correlated with DSS were selected to train a Random Forest model and tested on two independent test sets consisting of 41 individuals profiled on a different microarray platform and 33 volunteers assayed by qRT-PCR.

Results

1456 probes are significantly associated with DSS at 1% false discovery rate. We selected 19 genes with the largest fold change to train a random forest model. We observed good concordance between predicted and actual scores in the first test set (r = 0.57; RMSE = −16.1%) with the greatest agreement achieved on samples collected approximately 72 h post challenge. Therefore, we assayed samples collected at baseline and 72 h post challenge in the second test set by qRT-PCR and observed good concordance (r = 0.81; RMSE = −36.1%).

Conclusions

We developed a 19-gene qRT-PCR panel to predict DSS, validated on two independent datasets. A transcriptomics based panel could provide a more objective measure of symptom scoring in future influenza challenge studies.

Trial registration Samples were obtained from a clinical trial with the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02014870, first registered on December 5, 2013

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12967-017-1235-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mid-season real-time estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in persons 65 years and older in register-based surveillance, Stockholm County, Sweden, and Finland, January 2017

Systems for register-based monitoring of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) in real time were set up in Stockholm County, Sweden, and Finland, before start of the 2016/17 influenza season, using population-based cohort studies. Both in Stockholm and Finland, an early epidemic of influenza A(H3N2) peaked in week 52, 2016. Already during weeks 48 to 50, analyses of influenza VE in persons 65 years and above showed moderately good estimates of around 50%, then rapidly declined by week 2, 2017 to 28% and 32% in Stockholm and Finland, respectively. The sensitivity analyses, where time since vaccination was taken into account, could not demonstrate a clear decline, neither by calendar week nor by time since vaccination. Most (68%) of the samples collected from vaccinated patients belonged to the 3C.2a1 subclade with the additional amino acid substitution T135K in haemagglutinin (64%) or to subclade 3C.2a with the additional haemagglutinin substitutions T131K and R142K (36%). The proportion of samples containing these alterations increased during the studied period. These substitutions may be responsible for viral antigenic change and part of the observed VE drop. Another possible cause is poor vaccine immunogenicity in older persons. Improved influenza vaccines are needed, especially for the elderly.

Summary of the NACI Statement on Seasonal Influenza Vaccine for 2017-2018

Background

Influenza is a respiratory infection caused primarily by influenza A and B viruses. Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza and its complications. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides recommendations regarding seasonal influenza vaccines annually to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).

Objective

To summarize the NACI recommendations regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines for the 2017-2018 influenza season.

Methods

Annual influenza vaccine recommendations are developed by NACI's Influenza Working Group for consideration and approval by NACI, based on NACI's evidence-based process for developing recommendations. The recommendations include a consideration of the burden of influenza illness and the target populations for vaccination; efficacy and effectiveness, immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccines; vaccine schedules; and other aspects of influenza immunization. These recommendations are published annually on the Agency's website in the NACI Advisory Committee Statement: Canadian Immunization Guide Chapter on Influenza and Statement on Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (the Statement).

Results

The annual statement has been updated for the 2017-2018 influenza season to incorporate recommendations for the use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) that were contained in two addenda published after the 2016-2017 statement. These recommendations were 1) that egg-allergic individuals may be vaccinated against influenza using the low ovalbumin-containing LAIV licensed for use in Canada and 2) to continue to recommend the use of LAIV in children and adolescents 2-17 years of age, but to remove the preferential recommendation for its use.

Conclusion

NACI continues to recommend annual influenza vaccination for all individuals aged six months and older, with particular focus on people at high risk of influenza-related complications or hospitalization, people capable of transmitting influenza to those at high risk, and others as indicated.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation due to laboratory-confirmed influenza in children two to six years of age in England in the 2015/16 season

The United Kingdom is introducing a universal annual influenza vaccination programme for children. Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalisation in 2 to 6 year-olds in England was measured in 2015/16 using the screening method. VE adjusted for age, geography and month was 54.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 31.5% to 68.4%) for all influenza types combined; 48.3% (95% CI: 16.9% to 67.8%) for A(H1N1)pdm09 and 70.6% (95% CI: 33.2% to 87.1%) for B. The findings support on-going programme roll-out.

Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine for adults and children in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in primary care in the United Kingdom: 2015/16 end-of-season results

The United Kingdom (UK) is in the third season of introducing universal paediatric influenza vaccination with a quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The 2015/16 season in the UK was initially dominated by influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and then influenza of B/Victoria lineage, not contained in that season's adult trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV). Overall adjusted end-of-season vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 52.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 41.0-61.6) against influenza-confirmed primary care consultation, 54.5% (95% CI: 41.6-64.5) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and 54.2% (95% CI: 33.1-68.6) against influenza B. In 2-17 year-olds, adjusted VE for LAIV was 57.6% (95% CI: 25.1 to 76.0) against any influenza, 81.4% (95% CI: 39.6-94.3) against influenza B and 41.5% (95% CI: -8.5 to 68.5) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. These estimates demonstrate moderate to good levels of protection, particularly against influenza B in children, but relatively less against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. Despite lineage mismatch in the trivalent IIV, adults younger than 65 years were still protected against influenza B. These results provide reassurance for the UK to continue its influenza immunisation programme planned for 2016/17.

Influenza

Influenza is one of the commonest infections in human populations, and causing substantial morbidity and mortality globally. The influenza virus is divided into different types and subtypes, three of which are currently circulating widely in humans: influenza A(H3N2) and influenza B. The virus undergoes constant evolution, leading to annual seasonal winter epidemics in temperate countries and necessitating annual updates to the vaccine. Rarely, completely new influenza viruses can emerge in human populations, giving rise to influenza pandemics. Children aged <5 years (especially those <2 years) and those with underlying illness such as cardiac, respiratory and severe neurologic disease have an increased risk of severe outcomes associated with influenza. Pregnant women have an increased risk of severe influenza. Complications may involve the respiratory tract (e.g. otitis media or pneumonia) or, less commonly, other organ systems (e.g. encephalitis or myocarditis). Specific antiviral treatment should be offered as soon as possible for hospitalized children with presumed or confirmed influenza and for influenza of any severity for children at high risk of severe complications of influenza without waiting for laboratory confirmation. Antiviral treatment is usually not warranted for uncomplicated influenza as this is usually self-limiting. Annual influenza vaccination should be offered to all individuals at increased risk for complications of influenza. Vaccine cannot be given to children aged <6 months but maternal influenza immunization during pregnancy is recommended and can confer protection to the young infant.

Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine effective against influenza A(H3N2) variant viruses in children during the 2014/15 season, Japan

The 2014/15 influenza season in Japan was characterised by predominant influenza A(H3N2) activity; 99% of influenza A viruses detected were A(H3N2). Subclade 3C.2a viruses were the major epidemic A(H3N2) viruses, and were genetically distinct from A/New York/39/2012(H3N2) of 2014/15 vaccine strain in Japan, which was classified as clade 3C.1. We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in children aged 6 months to 15 years by test-negative case–control design based on influenza rapid diagnostic test. Between November 2014 and March 2015, a total of 3,752 children were enrolled: 1,633 tested positive for influenza A and 42 for influenza B, and 2,077 tested negative. Adjusted VE was 38% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 28 to 46) against influenza virus infection overall, 37% (95% CI: 27 to 45) against influenza A, and 47% (95% CI: -2 to 73) against influenza B. However, IIV was not statistically significantly effective against influenza A in infants aged 6 to 11 months or adolescents aged 13 to 15 years. VE in preventing hospitalisation for influenza A infection was 55% (95% CI: 42 to 64). Trivalent IIV that included A/New York/39/2012(H3N2) was effective against drifted influenza A(H3N2) virus, although vaccine mismatch resulted in low VE.