1
|
Zawiasa-Bryszewska A, Nowicka M, Górska M, Edyko P, Edyko K, Tworek D, Antczak A, Burzyński J, Kurnatowska I. Safety and Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Kidney Graft Recipients in Late Period After Kidney Transplantation. Vaccines (Basel) 2025; 13:189. [PMID: 40006735 PMCID: PMC11861709 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines13020189] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2025] [Revised: 02/02/2025] [Accepted: 02/11/2025] [Indexed: 02/27/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Influenza is a viral infection affecting up to 20% of the general population annually. Solid organ transplant recipients have a higher morbidity and mortality risk, as well as a greater likelihood of severe disease complications. Vaccination against the influenza virus is a safe and recommended prophylaxis; however, immunosuppression and high comorbidity burdens impair the immune response. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and humoral response to influenza vaccine in a population of kidney transplant recipients (KTx). METHODS Adult KTx recipients at least 6 months post-KTx were divided into vaccinated (vKTx) and non-vaccinated (nvKTx) groups based on consent for vaccination. The vKTx group received one dose of quadrivalent split virion inactivated vaccine (Vaxigrip Tetra Sanofi Pasteur). Subjective symptoms and side effects were recorded in paper journals. Antibody levels were assessed with ELISA prior to and 3 months following vaccination. Serum creatinine and proteinuria were assessed prior to vaccination as well as 3 and 6 months after. RESULTS Of 450 recruited KTx recipients, 91 in the vKTx group and 36 in the nvKTx group of comparable age, KTx vintage, and graft function were included in the study. Graft function and proteinuria remained stable in both groups. The vKTx group experienced no severe adverse events. The most common complaints were general malaise (20.5%) and injection site pain (10.3%). Overall infection rates were comparable, yet the vKTx group experienced significantly fewer serious infections (11.4% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.01); the vKTx group showed a greater increase of Influenza A IgM (p = 0.05) and Influenza B IgG (p = 0.01) compared with the nvKTx group. CONCLUSIONS Influenza vaccination prevents severe infections in KTx recipients, with good serological response and no impact on graft function or severe adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Zawiasa-Bryszewska
- Department of Internal Medicine and Transplant Nephrology, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland (P.E.)
| | - Maja Nowicka
- Department of Internal Medicine and Transplant Nephrology, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland (P.E.)
| | - Monika Górska
- Department of Internal Medicine and Transplant Nephrology, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland (P.E.)
| | - Piotr Edyko
- Department of Internal Medicine and Transplant Nephrology, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland (P.E.)
| | - Krzysztof Edyko
- Student Scientific Society Affiliated with the Department of Internal Medicine and Transplant Nephrology, Chair of Pulmonology, Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland
| | - Damian Tworek
- Department of General and Oncological Pulmonology, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland
| | - Adam Antczak
- Department of General and Oncological Pulmonology, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland
| | - Jacek Burzyński
- Department of Statistics and Translational Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland
| | - Ilona Kurnatowska
- Department of Internal Medicine and Transplant Nephrology, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland (P.E.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pennisi F, D’Amelio AC, Cuciniello R, Borlini S, Mirzaian L, Ricciardi GE, Minerva M, Gianfredi V, Signorelli C. Post-Vaccination Anaphylaxis in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines (Basel) 2025; 13:37. [PMID: 39852816 PMCID: PMC11769139 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines13010037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2024] [Revised: 12/28/2024] [Accepted: 01/02/2025] [Indexed: 01/26/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Vaccines have been recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. However, vaccine-associated anaphylaxis, although rare, is a serious adverse reaction. The incidence of anaphylaxis related to non-COVID-19 vaccines in adults remains underreported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to estimate the incidence of post-vaccination anaphylaxis across various vaccines in adults. METHODS A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science identified studies on anaphylaxis following vaccination in adults (≥18 years), excluding COVID-19 vaccines. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO in advance (ID CRD42024566928). Random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to pool data and estimate the logit proportion, with the logit-transformed proportion serving as the effect size, thereby allowing for the calculation of event rates. RESULTS A total of 37 studies were included in the systematic review, with 22 studies contributing to the meta-analysis, representing a combined population of 206,855,261 participants. Most studies focused on influenza vaccines (n = 15). Across all studies, 262 anaphylactic cases were reported, with 153 cases related to influenza vaccines, followed by herpes zoster virus vaccines (38 cases) and yellow fever vaccines (29 cases). Td/Tdap vaccine had the lowest rate (0.0001 per 100,000 participants). The overall random-effects model yielded a logit proportion of -10.45 (95% CI: -12.09 to -8.82, p < 0.001), corresponding to an event rate of 2.91 events per 100,000 subjects (95% CI: 0.56 to 14.73). Sensitivity analysis showed a higher incidence for influenza, hepatitis vaccines, and in vulnerable populations. CONCLUSIONS Anaphylaxis following vaccination in adults is rare but varies by vaccine type. Strengthened monitoring and preparedness are essential, especially in non-medical settings, to ensure a rapid response to anaphylaxis and maintain public confidence in vaccination programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Flavia Pennisi
- PhD National Programme in One Health Approaches to Infectious Diseases and Life Science Research, Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy; (F.P.); (G.E.R.)
- School of Medicine, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; (A.C.D.); (S.B.); (L.M.); (M.M.); (C.S.)
| | - Anna Carole D’Amelio
- School of Medicine, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; (A.C.D.); (S.B.); (L.M.); (M.M.); (C.S.)
| | - Rita Cuciniello
- School of Medicine, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; (A.C.D.); (S.B.); (L.M.); (M.M.); (C.S.)
| | - Stefania Borlini
- School of Medicine, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; (A.C.D.); (S.B.); (L.M.); (M.M.); (C.S.)
| | - Luigi Mirzaian
- School of Medicine, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; (A.C.D.); (S.B.); (L.M.); (M.M.); (C.S.)
| | - Giovanni Emanuele Ricciardi
- PhD National Programme in One Health Approaches to Infectious Diseases and Life Science Research, Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy; (F.P.); (G.E.R.)
- School of Medicine, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; (A.C.D.); (S.B.); (L.M.); (M.M.); (C.S.)
| | - Massimo Minerva
- School of Medicine, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; (A.C.D.); (S.B.); (L.M.); (M.M.); (C.S.)
| | - Vincenza Gianfredi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Via Pascal, 36, 20133 Milan, Italy
| | - Carlo Signorelli
- School of Medicine, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; (A.C.D.); (S.B.); (L.M.); (M.M.); (C.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Grohskopf LA, Ferdinands JM, Blanton LH, Broder KR, Loehr J. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2024-25 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2024; 73:1-25. [PMID: 39197095 PMCID: PMC11501009 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7305a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 50.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/30/2024] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2023-24 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2022;72[No. RR-2]:1-24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3s), trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3), and trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV3) are expected to be available. All persons should receive an age-appropriate influenza vaccine (i.e., one approved for their age), with the exception that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18 through 64 years who are receiving immunosuppressive medication regimens may receive either high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) or adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) as acceptable options (without a preference over other age-appropriate IIV3s or RIV3). Except for vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed and recommended vaccine is available. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: trivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3), trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3), or trivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used.Primary updates to this report include the following two topics: the composition of 2024-25 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines and updated recommendations for vaccination of adult solid organ transplant recipients. First, following a period of no confirmed detections of wild-type influenza B/Yamagata lineage viruses in global surveillance since March 2020, 2024-25 U.S. influenza vaccines will not include an influenza B/Yamagata component. All influenza vaccines available in the United States during the 2024-25 season will be trivalent vaccines containing hemagglutinin derived from 1) an influenza A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 2) an influenza A/Thailand/8/2022 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Massachusetts/18/2022 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); and 3) an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus. Second, recommendations for vaccination of adult solid organ transplant recipients have been updated to include HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 as acceptable options for solid organ transplant recipients aged 18 through 64 years who are receiving immunosuppressive medication regimens (without a preference over other age-appropriate IIV3s or RIV3).This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2024-25 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/acip-recs/hcp/vaccine-specific/flu.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
4
|
Shahri MS, Sadeghi S, Hazegh Fetratjoo D, Hosseini H, Amin Ghobadi M, Afshani SM, Mirhassani R, Gohari K, Havasi F, Abdolghaffari A, Hedayatjoo B, Ghanei M. Immunogenicity and safety evaluation of a newly manufactured recombinant Baculovirus-Expressed quadrivalent influenza vaccine in adults 18 years old and Above: An Open-Label, phase III extension study. Int Immunopharmacol 2024; 136:112214. [PMID: 38823176 DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112214] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2024] [Revised: 04/26/2024] [Accepted: 05/03/2024] [Indexed: 06/03/2024]
Abstract
In the face of global health threats, there is a growing demand for vaccines that can be manufactured on a large scale within compressed timeline. This study responds to this imperative by delving into the evaluation of FluGuard, a novel recombinant influenza vaccine developed by Nivad Pharmed Salamat Company in Iran. Positioned as a phase 3 extension, the research aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of FluGuard in volunteers aged 18 and above. The study was conducted as a single-center, open-label clinical trial. All eligible volunteers received FluGuard (2021-2022 Formula) on day 0. Safety assessments occurred at days 1, 4, 7, 14, 28 and 42 post-vaccination. Immunogenicity was measured through seroconversion, seroprotection, and geometric mean titer fold increase in subgroups of 250 volunteers. Among the 4,260 volunteers were screened and assessed for eligibility, 1000 were enrolled. At day 28 post-vaccination, seroconversion rates for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Yamagata, B/Victoria were 53.4 % [95 %CI: 46.7-60], 57.7 % [95 %CI: 51.1-64.3], 54.3 % [95 %CI: 47.7-60.9], and 36.2 % [95 %CI: 29.8-42.6], respectively in volunteers 18 years and above. The most common solicited adverse events were pain at the injection site, malaise, and headache. No suspected unexpected adverse events and adverse events of special interest occurred during the study period. Our findings suggested that FluGuard® exhibits a desirable safety profile and provides sufficient immunogenicity against influenza virus types A and B. However, extended studies are warranted to assess the long-term protective efficacy. Trial Registration: The study protocol was accepted by Iranian registry of clinical trial; https://www.irct.ir; IRCT20201104049265N2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Setayesh Sadeghi
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | | | - Hamed Hosseini
- Clinical Trial Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | | | | | - Reihaneh Mirhassani
- Department of Biotechnology, College of Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; Nivad Pharmed Salamat, Biotechnology Research Center, Tehran, Iran
| | - Kimiya Gohari
- Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
| | - Forugh Havasi
- Nivad Pharmed Salamat, Biotechnology Research Center, Tehran, Iran; Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
| | - Amirhossein Abdolghaffari
- Department of Toxicology and Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran; Gastrointestinal Pharmacology Interest Group (GPIG), Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Tehran, Iran
| | | | - Mostafa Ghanei
- Chemical Injuries Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hadj Hassine I, Ben M'hadheb M, Almalki MA, Gharbi J. Virus-like particles as powerful vaccination strategy against human viruses. Rev Med Virol 2024; 34:e2498. [PMID: 38116958 DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2498] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2023] [Revised: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 12/08/2023] [Indexed: 12/21/2023]
Abstract
Nowadays, viruses are not only seen as causative agents of viral infectious diseases but also as valuable research materials for various biomedical purposes, including recombinant protein production. When expressed in living or cell-free expression systems, viral structural proteins self-assemble into virus-like particles (VLPs). Mimicking the native form and size of viruses and lacking the genetic material, VLPs are safe and highly immunogenic and thus can be exploited to develop antiviral vaccines. Some vaccines based on VLPs against various infectious pathogens have already been licenced for human use and are available in the commercial market, the latest of which is a VLP-based vaccine to protect against the novel Coronavirus. Despite the success and popularity of VLP subunit vaccines, many more VLPs are still in different stages of design, production, and approval. There are still many challenges that require to be addressed in the future before this surface display system can be widely used as an effective vaccine strategy in combating infectious diseases. In this review, we highlight the use of structural viral proteins to produce VLPs, emphasising their intrinsic properties, structural classification, and main expression host systems. We also compiled the recent scientific literature about VLP-based vaccines to underline the recent advances in their application as a vaccine strategy for preventing and fighting virulent human pathogens. Finally, we presented the key challenges and possible solutions for VLP-based vaccine production.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ikbel Hadj Hassine
- Virology and Antiviral Strategies Research Unit UR17ES30, Higher Institute of Biotechnology, University of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia
- USCR-SAG Unit, Higher Institute of Biotechnology, University of Monastirs, Monastir, Tunisia
| | - Manel Ben M'hadheb
- Virology and Antiviral Strategies Research Unit UR17ES30, Higher Institute of Biotechnology, University of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia
- USCR-SAG Unit, Higher Institute of Biotechnology, University of Monastirs, Monastir, Tunisia
| | - Mohammed A Almalki
- Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
| | - Jawhar Gharbi
- Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Grohskopf LA, Blanton LH, Ferdinands JM, Chung JR, Broder KR, Talbot HK. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, 2023–24 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2023; 72:1-25. [PMCID: PMC10468199 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7202a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2022–23 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States ( MMWR Recomm Rep 2022;71[No. RR-1]:1–28). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2023–24 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. For most persons who need only 1 dose of influenza vaccine for the season, vaccination should ideally be offered during September or October. However, vaccination should continue after October and throughout the season as long as influenza viruses are circulating and unexpired vaccine is available. Influenza vaccines might be available as early as July or August, but for most adults (particularly adults aged ≥65 years) and for pregnant persons in the first or second trimester, vaccination during July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that vaccination later in the season might not be possible. Certain children aged 6 months through 8 years need 2 doses; these children should receive the first dose as soon as possible after vaccine is available, including during July and August. Vaccination during July and August can be considered for children of any age who need only 1 dose for the season and for pregnant persons who are in the third trimester during these months if vaccine is available ACIP recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications receive a licensed and age-appropriate seasonal influenza vaccine. With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: quadrivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV4), quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), or quadrivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV4). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used Primary updates to this report include the following two topics: 1) the composition of 2023–24 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines and 2) updated recommendations regarding influenza vaccination of persons with egg allergy. First, the composition of 2023–24 U.S. influenza vaccines includes an update to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 component. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from 1) an influenza A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 2) an influenza A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Darwin/6/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 3) an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus; and 4) an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Second, ACIP recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months with egg allergy should receive influenza vaccine. Any influenza vaccine (egg based or nonegg based) that is otherwise appropriate for the recipient’s age and health status can be used. It is no longer recommended that persons who have had an allergic reaction to egg involving symptoms other than urticaria should be vaccinated in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions if an egg-based vaccine is used. Egg allergy alone necessitates no additional safety measures for influenza vaccination beyond those recommended for any recipient of any vaccine, regardless of severity of previous reaction to egg. All vaccines should be administered in settings in which personnel and equipment needed for rapid recognition and treatment of acute hypersensitivity reactions are available This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2023–24 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html . These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website ( https://www.cdc.gov/flu ). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
7
|
Ng QX, Lee DYX, Ng CX, Yau CE, Lim YL, Liew TM. Examining the Negative Sentiments Related to Influenza Vaccination from 2017 to 2022: An Unsupervised Deep Learning Analysis of 261,613 Twitter Posts. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11:1018. [PMID: 37376407 PMCID: PMC10305179 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11061018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2023] [Revised: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Several countries are witnessing significant increases in influenza cases and severity. Despite the availability, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccination, vaccination coverage remains suboptimal globally. In this study, we examined the prevailing negative sentiments related to influenza vaccination via a deep learning analysis of public Twitter posts over the past five years. We extracted original tweets containing the terms 'flu jab', '#flujab', 'flu vaccine', '#fluvaccine', 'influenza vaccine', '#influenzavaccine', 'influenza jab', or '#influenzajab', and posted in English from 1 January 2017 to 1 November 2022. We then identified tweets with negative sentiment from individuals, and this was followed by topic modelling using machine learning models and qualitative thematic analysis performed independently by the study investigators. A total of 261,613 tweets were analyzed. Topic modelling and thematic analysis produced five topics grouped under two major themes: (1) criticisms of governmental policies related to influenza vaccination and (2) misinformation related to influenza vaccination. A significant majority of the tweets were centered around perceived influenza vaccine mandates or coercion to vaccinate. Our analysis of temporal trends also showed an increase in the prevalence of negative sentiments related to influenza vaccination from the year 2020 onwards, which possibly coincides with misinformation related to COVID-19 policies and vaccination. There was a typology of misperceptions and misinformation underlying the negative sentiments related to influenza vaccination. Public health communications should be mindful of these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qin Xiang Ng
- Health Services Research Unit, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore 169608, Singapore;
- MOH Holdings Pte Ltd., 1 Maritime Square, Singapore 099253, Singapore
| | - Dawn Yi Xin Lee
- School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
| | - Clara Xinyi Ng
- NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore 117597, Singapore
| | - Chun En Yau
- NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore 117597, Singapore
| | - Yu Liang Lim
- MOH Holdings Pte Ltd., 1 Maritime Square, Singapore 099253, Singapore
| | - Tau Ming Liew
- Department of Psychiatry, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore 169608, Singapore
- SingHealth Duke-NUS Medicine Academic Clinical Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore 169857, Singapore
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117549, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Grohskopf LA, Blanton LH, Ferdinands JM, Chung JR, Broder KR, Talbot HK, Morgan RL, Fry AM. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022-23 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2022; 71:1-28. [PMID: 36006864 PMCID: PMC9429824 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7101a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 183] [Impact Index Per Article: 61.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2021–22 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2021;70[No. RR-5]:1–24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used.With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2022–23 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Trivalent influenza vaccines are no longer available, but data that involve these vaccines are included for reference. Influenza vaccines might be available as early as July or August, but for most persons who need only 1 dose of influenza vaccine for the season, vaccination should ideally be offered during September or October. However, vaccination should continue after October and throughout the season as long as influenza viruses are circulating and unexpired vaccine is available. For most adults (particularly adults aged ≥65 years) and for pregnant persons in the first or second trimester, vaccination during July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that vaccination later in the season might not be possible. Certain children aged 6 months through 8 years need 2 doses; these children should receive the first dose as soon as possible after vaccine is available, including during July and August. Vaccination during July and August can be considered for children of any age who need only 1 dose for the season and for pregnant persons who are in the third trimester if vaccine is available during those months Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 20, 2021; January 12, 2022; February 23, 2022; and June 22, 2022. Primary updates to this report include the following three topics: 1) the composition of 2022–23 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines; 2) updates to the description of influenza vaccines expected to be available for the 2022–23 season, including one influenza vaccine labeling change that occurred after the publication of the 2021–22 ACIP influenza recommendations; and 3) updates to the recommendations concerning vaccination of adults aged ≥65 years. First, the composition of 2022–23 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H3N2) and influenza B/Victoria lineage components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based or recombinant vaccines); an influenza A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Darwin/6/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture–based or recombinant vaccines); an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus; and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Second, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), was changed in October 2021 from ≥2 years to ≥6 months. Third, recommendations for vaccination of adults aged ≥65 years have been modified. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: quadrivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV4), quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), or quadrivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV4). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2022–23 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
9
|
Curbing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy from a Dermatological Standpoint: Analysis of Cutaneous Reactions in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Database. Am J Clin Dermatol 2022; 23:729-737. [PMID: 35931925 PMCID: PMC9361907 DOI: 10.1007/s40257-022-00715-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines have been of interest since their emergency authorization. Cutaneous manifestations of the vaccines are not well studied. We aimed to characterize cutaneous reactions to the Moderna (mRNA-1273) and the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines on a large, national scale. METHODS The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System was filtered for cutaneous and hair and nail reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. Patient demographics and past medical histories, vaccine manufacturer and dosing, symptom timing, reaction location, and patient outcomes were extracted from each report. RESULTS As of December 24, 2021, there were 67,273 cutaneous reactions to all COVID-19 vaccines, with most patients receiving the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines. The most common reactions overall were injection-site reaction, urticaria, and papular rash, with injection-site reaction more common after the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine, and all other cutaneous reactions more common after the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine. Patients with past histories of psoriasis, urticaria, and local site reactions to a vaccine were more likely to report these same symptoms after the COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION Patients should be counseled about these potential dermatologic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. Most occur within the first few days after vaccination, and are mild and self-limiting. Patients should therefore be encouraged that it is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine from a dermatological perspective.
Collapse
|
10
|
Tsai SY, Yeh TY, Chiu NC, Huang CT. National safety surveillance of quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine in Taiwan during NH 20/21. Vaccine 2022; 40:3701-3704. [PMID: 35577629 PMCID: PMC9106408 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.05.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2021] [Revised: 04/16/2022] [Accepted: 05/05/2022] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for influenza vaccine significantly increased in the initial weeks of the 2020-2021 influenza vaccination campaign season in Taiwan. To meet this demand, the Taiwanese government therefore purchased additional influenza vaccines via special import, including 350,000 doses of quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccines (RIV4, Flublok Quadrivalent). Approved in the United States since 2016, there were limited numbers of published studies regarding RIV4 outside America. We utilized the national passive surveillance system consisting adverse event (AE) reports following RIV4 immunization to describe its safety profiles in Taiwan. METHODS We obtained the database from the Taiwan National Adverse Drugs Reactions Reporting System and collected reports from January 2021 to July 2021, which was at least one month after RIV4 immunization. AE reporting rates were calculated based on the total administered doses. RESULTS Eight AEs were reported among 200,287 administered doses, which led to a reporting rate of 3.99 AEs per 100,000 doses administered. The mean age of the reported individuals were 47.53 years, and women (75%) were the predominant gender. Most adverse events started within the first day after immunization, with one reported as starting 4 days after vaccination. Among the 8 cases, 75% (n = 6) were non-serious and the most common symptoms were erythematous skin rashes with pruritus. Two cases were listed as serious based on the criteria of "other clinically significant medical conditions", but neither was judged to have a causal relationship with RIV4 immunization. CONCLUSION The Taiwan national passive surveillance data supported the safety profiles of RIV4 in Taiwan population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Szu-Ying Tsai
- Sanofi, Taipei, Taiwan,Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States,Corresponding author at: Sanofi, 7F, No. 3, Songren Rd, Xinyi District, Taipei City 11010, Taiwan
| | | | - Nan-Chang Chiu
- Department of Pediatrics, Mackay Children’s Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan,Department of Medicine, Mackay Medical College, New Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Ching-Tai Huang
- Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Rosenblum HG, Gee J, Liu R, Marquez PL, Zhang B, Strid P, Abara WE, McNeil MM, Myers TR, Hause AM, Su JR, Markowitz LE, Shimabukuro TT, Shay DK. Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe. THE LANCET. INFECTIOUS DISEASES 2022; 22:802-812. [PMID: 35271805 PMCID: PMC8901181 DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00054-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2021] [Revised: 01/18/2022] [Accepted: 01/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA. We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme. METHODS In this observational study, we analysed data reported to VAERS and v-safe during Dec 14, 2020, to June 14, 2021. VAERS reports were categorised as non-serious, serious, or death. Reporting rates were calculated using numbers of COVID-19 doses administered as the denominator. We analysed v-safe survey reports from days 0-7 after vaccination for reactogenicity, severity (mild, moderate, or severe), and health impacts (ie, unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or received care from a medical professional). FINDINGS During the study period, 298 792 852 doses of mRNA vaccines were administered in the USA. VAERS processed 340 522 reports: 313 499 (92·1%) were non-serious, 22 527 (6·6%) were serious (non-death), and 4496 (1·3%) were deaths. Over half of 7 914 583 v-safe participants self-reported local and systemic reactogenicity, more frequently after dose two (4 068 447 [71·7%] of 5 674 420 participants for local reactogenicity and 4 018 920 [70·8%] for systemic) than after dose one (4 644 989 [68·6%] of 6 775 515 participants for local reactogenicity and 3 573 429 [52·7%] for systemic). Injection-site pain (4 488 402 [66·2%] of 6 775 515 participants after dose one and 3 890 848 [68·6%] of 5 674 420 participants after dose two), fatigue (2 295 205 [33·9%] participants after dose one and 3 158 299 participants [55·7%] after dose two), and headache (1 831 471 [27·0%] participants after dose one and 2 623 721 [46·2%] participants after dose two) were commonly reported during days 0-7 following vaccination. Reactogenicity was reported most frequently the day after vaccination; most reactions were mild. More reports of being unable to work, do normal activities, or of seeking medical care occurred after dose two (1 821 421 [32·1%]) than after dose one (808 963 [11·9%]); less than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after vaccination (56 647 [0·8%] after dose one and 53 077 [0·9%] after dose two). INTERPRETATION Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration. FUNDING US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah G Rosenblum
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Julianne Gee
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| | - Ruiling Liu
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Paige L Marquez
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Bicheng Zhang
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Penelope Strid
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Winston E Abara
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Michael M McNeil
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Tanya R Myers
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Anne M Hause
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - John R Su
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Lauri E Markowitz
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Tom T Shimabukuro
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - David K Shay
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Formeister EJ, Wu MJ, Chari DA, Meek R, Rauch SD, Remenschneider AK, Quesnel AM, de Venecia R, Lee DJ, Chien W, Stewart CM, Galaiya D, Kozin ED, Sun DQ. Assessment of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss After COVID-19 Vaccination. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022; 148:307-315. [PMID: 35201274 PMCID: PMC8874871 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2021.4414] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Emerging reports of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) after COVID-19 vaccination within the otolaryngological community and the public have raised concern about a possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and the development of SSNHL. OBJECTIVE To examine the potential association between COVID-19 vaccination and SSNHL. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study and case series involved an up-to-date population-based analysis of 555 incident reports of probable SSNHL in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) over the first 7 months of the US vaccination campaign (December 14, 2020, through July 16, 2021). In addition, data from a multi-institutional retrospective case series of 21 patients who developed SSNHL after COVID-19 vaccination were analyzed. The study included all adults experiencing SSNHL within 3 weeks of COVID-19 vaccination who submitted reports to VAERS and consecutive adult patients presenting to 2 tertiary care centers and 1 community practice in the US who were diagnosed with SSNHL within 3 weeks of COVID-19 vaccination. EXPOSURES Receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine produced by any of the 3 vaccine manufacturers (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) used in the US. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Incidence of reports of SSNHL after COVID-19 vaccination recorded in VAERS and clinical characteristics of adult patients presenting with SSNHL after COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS A total of 555 incident reports in VAERS (mean patient age, 54 years [range, 15-93 years]; 305 women [55.0%]; data on race and ethnicity not available in VAERS) met the definition of probable SSNHL (mean time to onset, 6 days [range, 0-21 days]) over the period investigated, representing an annualized incidence estimate of 0.6 to 28.0 cases of SSNHL per 100 000 people per year. The rate of incident reports of SSNHL was similar across all 3 vaccine manufacturers (0.16 cases per 100 000 doses for both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and 0.22 cases per 100 000 doses for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine). The case series included 21 patients (mean age, 61 years [range, 23-92 years]; 13 women [61.9%]) with SSNHL, with a mean time to onset of 6 days (range, 0-15 days). Patients were heterogeneous with respect to clinical and demographic characteristics. Preexisting autoimmune disease was present in 6 patients (28.6%). Of the 14 patients with posttreatment audiometric data, 8 (57.1%) experienced improvement after receiving treatment. One patient experienced SSNHL 14 days after receiving each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cross-sectional study, findings from an updated analysis of VAERS data and a case series of patients who experienced SSNHL after COVID-19 vaccination did not suggest an association between COVID-19 vaccination and an increased incidence of hearing loss compared with the expected incidence in the general population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric J. Formeister
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Matthew J. Wu
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Divya A. Chari
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Robert Meek
- Anne Arundel Ear, Nose, and Throat Surgery, Annapolis, Maryland
| | - Steven D. Rauch
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Aaron K. Remenschneider
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Alicia M. Quesnel
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ronald de Venecia
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel J. Lee
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Wade Chien
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - C. Matthew Stewart
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Deepa Galaiya
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Elliott D. Kozin
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel Q. Sun
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Grohskopf LA, Alyanak E, Ferdinands JM, Broder KR, Blanton LH, Talbot HK, Fry AM. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2021-22 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2021; 70:1-28. [PMID: 34448800 PMCID: PMC8407757 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7005a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 223] [Impact Index Per Article: 55.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
This report updates the 2020-21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021-22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).The 2021-22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021-22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021-22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4. This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021-22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
Collapse
|
14
|
COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Severe Asthma on Biologic Treatment: Safety, Tolerability, and Impact on Disease Control. Vaccines (Basel) 2021; 9:vaccines9080853. [PMID: 34451978 PMCID: PMC8402597 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9080853] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2021] [Revised: 08/02/2021] [Accepted: 08/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND COVID-19 vaccination has been recommended for severe asthmatics. We aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and impact on disease control and patient's quality of life of the mRNA SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccine in severe asthma patients regarding biologic treatment. METHODS Severe asthmatic patients regularly managed by two big allergy and respiratory referral centers were offered to undergo Pfizer COVID 19 vaccination at the hospital site. Patients filled in an adverse events questionnaire after the first and second dose, as well as the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). RESULTS Overall, 253 patients were vaccinated; only 16 patients refused. No serious events were detected. Less than 20% of patients reported side effects, most of which were classified as very common side effects. No differences were reported according to the ongoing biologic drug. A significant improvement in both ACT and AQLQ was observed between the first and the second dose administration. CONCLUSIONS Our data confirm the optimal safety and tolerability profile of mRNA SARS- CoV-2/COVID-19 in severe asthma patients on biologic treatment, as well as their positive attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination. The negligible proportion of patients reporting side effects and the absence of asthma exacerbations are relevant to support the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in severe asthma patients worldwide.
Collapse
|
15
|
Tan MP, Tan WS, Mohamed Alitheen NB, Yap WB. M2e-Based Influenza Vaccines with Nucleoprotein: A Review. Vaccines (Basel) 2021; 9:739. [PMID: 34358155 PMCID: PMC8310010 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9070739] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2021] [Revised: 06/29/2021] [Accepted: 07/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Discovery of conserved antigens for universal influenza vaccines warrants solutions to a number of concerns pertinent to the currently licensed influenza vaccines, such as annual reformulation and mismatching with the circulating subtypes. The latter causes low vaccine efficacies, and hence leads to severe disease complications and high hospitalization rates among susceptible and immunocompromised individuals. A universal influenza vaccine ensures cross-protection against all influenza subtypes due to the presence of conserved epitopes that are found in the majority of, if not all, influenza types and subtypes, e.g., influenza matrix protein 2 ectodomain (M2e) and nucleoprotein (NP). Despite its relatively low immunogenicity, influenza M2e has been proven to induce humoral responses in human recipients. Influenza NP, on the other hand, promotes remarkable anti-influenza T-cell responses. Additionally, NP subunits are able to assemble into particles which can be further exploited as an adjuvant carrier for M2e peptide. Practically, the T-cell immunodominance of NP can be transferred to M2e when it is fused and expressed as a chimeric protein in heterologous hosts such as Escherichia coli without compromising the antigenicity. Given the ability of NP-M2e fusion protein in inducing cross-protective anti-influenza cell-mediated and humoral immunity, its potential as a universal influenza vaccine is therefore worth further exploration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mei Peng Tan
- Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia; (M.P.T.); (N.B.M.A.)
- Center for Toxicology and Health Risk Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur 50300, Malaysia
| | - Wen Siang Tan
- Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia;
- Laboratory of Vaccine and Biomolecules, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
| | - Noorjahan Banu Mohamed Alitheen
- Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia; (M.P.T.); (N.B.M.A.)
| | - Wei Boon Yap
- Center for Toxicology and Health Risk Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur 50300, Malaysia
- Biomedical Science Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur 50300, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|