Cluster-randomized trial of adjuvanted vs. non-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine in 823 U.S. nursing homes

Trivalent and quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in adults aged 60 and older: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, JBI Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Database, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Evidence -Based Medicine database were searched from inception to 20 June 20, 2022. Two reviewers screened, abstracted, and appraised articles (Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) 2.0 tool) independently. We assessed certainty of findings using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approaches. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for count outcomes along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults (≥60 years old) receiving an influenza vaccine licensed in Canada or the USA (vs placebo, no vaccine, or any other licensed vaccine), at any dose.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) and influenza-like illness (ILI). Secondary outcomes were the number of vascular adverse events, hospitalisation for acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI, inpatient hospitalisation, emergency room (ER) visit for ILI, outpatient visit, and mortality, among others.

RESULTS

We included 41 RCTs and 15 companion reports comprising 8 vaccine types and 206 032 participants. Vaccines may prevent LCI compared with placebo, with high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) (NMA: 9 RCTs, 52 202 participants, OR 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11 to 0.51), low certainty of evidence) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) (OR 0.25, 95%CI (0.08 to 0.73), low certainty of evidence) among the most efficacious vaccines. Standard dose trivalent IIV3 (IIV3-SD) may prevent ILI compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (meta-analysis: 2 RCTs, 854 participants, OR 0.39, 95%CI (0.15 to 1.02), low certainty of evidence). Any HD was associated with prevention of ILI compared with placebo (NMA: 9 RCTs, 65 658 participants, OR 0.38, 95%CI (0.15 to 0.93)). Adjuvanted quadrivalent IIV (IIV4-Adj) may be associated with the least vascular adverse events, but the results were very uncertain (NMA: eight 8 RCTs, 57 677 participants, IRR 0.18, 95%CI (0.07 to 0.43), very low certainty of evidence). RIV on all-cause mortality may be comparable to placebo (NMA: 20 RCTs, 140 577 participants, OR 1.01, 95%CI (0.23 to 4.49), low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrated efficacy associated with IIV3-HD and RIV vaccines in protecting older persons against LCI. RIV vaccine may reduce all-cause mortality when compared with other vaccines, but the evidence is uncertain. Differences in efficacy between influenza vaccines remain uncertain with very low to moderate certainty of evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020177357.

Evaluating risk of bias using ROBINS-I tool in nonrandomized studies of adjuvanted influenza vaccine

Seasonal variation in influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) makes real-world evidence (RWE) useful in supplementing the clinical-evidence base from randomized clinical trials. Adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV) VE has been evaluated in multiple nonrandomized RWE studies. A systematic literature review of RWE studies evaluating the absolute or relative VE of aIIV was conducted. Identified studies were assessed by evaluators for risk of bias (RoB) by means of the ROBINS-I (Reduction of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) tool to inform evidence-based medicine deliberations. Differences in evaluator assessments were resolved by consensus. The literature review yielded 14 follow-up studies, seven test-negative case-control (TNCC) studies, five traditional case-control studies, and one cluster-randomized clinical trial. Most follow-up studies and three TNCC studies were judged at low RoB. Issues increasing RoB included inadequate control of confounding, selection of controls, and reliance on recall of vaccination. The concerns identified in any of the designs could be mitigated with straightforward revisions to design or implementation. 17 of 27 nonrandomized studies of adjuvanted influenza-vaccine effectiveness, some from each of four study designs, were judged at low risk of material bias. These studies merit credence in assessing aIIV effectiveness relative to other influenza vaccines.

Vaccine Effectiveness of non-adjuvanted and adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in the prevention of influenza-related hospitalization in older adults: A pooled analysis from the Serious Outcomes Surveillance (SOS) Network of the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN)

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccines prevent influenza-related morbidity and mortality; however, suboptimal vaccine effectiveness (VE) of non-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (naTIV) or quadrivalent formulations in older adults prompted the use of enhanced products such as adjuvanted TIV (aTIV). Here, the VE of aTIV is compared to naTIV for preventing influenza-associated hospitalization among older adults.

METHODS

A test-negative design study was used with pooled data from the 2012 to 2015 influenza seasons. An inverse probability of treatment (IPT)-weighted logistic regression estimated the Odds Ratio (OR) for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization. VE was calculated as (1-OR)*100% with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Of 7,101 adults aged ≥ 65, 3,364 received naTIV and 526 received aTIV. The overall VE against influenza hospitalization was 45.9% (95% CI: 40.2%-51.1%) for naTIV and 53.5% (42.8%-62.3%) for aTIV. No statistically significant differences in VE were found between aTIV and naTIV by age group or influenza season, though a trend favoring aTIV over naTIV was noted. Frailty may have impacted VE in aTIV recipients compared to those receiving naTIV, according to an exploratory analysis; VE adjusted by frailty was 59.1% (49.6%-66.8%) for aTIV and 44.8% (39.1%-50.0%) for naTIV. The overall relative VE of aTIV to naTIV against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospital admission was 25% (OR 0.75; 0.61-0.92), demonstrating statistically significant benefit favoring aTIV.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting for frailty, aTIV showed statistically significantly better protection than naTIV against influenza-associated hospitalizations in older adults. In future studies, it is important to consider frailty as a significant confounder of VE.

Reducing unplanned hospital admissions from care homes: a systematic review

Background

Care homes predominantly care for older people with complex health and care needs, who are at high risk of unplanned hospital admissions. While often necessary, such admissions can be distressing and provide an opportunity cost as well as a financial cost.

Objectives

Our objective was to update a 2014 evidence review of interventions to reduce unplanned admissions of care home residents. We carried out a systematic review of interventions used in the UK and other high-income countries by synthesising evidence of effects of these interventions on hospital admissions; feasibility and acceptability; costs and value for money; and factors affecting applicability of international evidence to UK settings.

Data sources

We searched the following databases in December 2021 for studies published since 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Health Management Information Consortium; Medline; PsycINFO; Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes; Social Care Online; and Social Service Abstracts. 'Grey' literature (January 2022) and citations were searched and reference lists were checked.

Methods

We included studies of any design reporting interventions delivered in care homes (with or without nursing) or hospitals to reduce unplanned hospital admissions. A taxonomy of interventions was developed from an initial scoping search. Outcomes of interest included measures of effect on unplanned admissions among care home residents; barriers/facilitators to implementation in a UK setting and acceptability to care home residents, their families and staff. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. We used published frameworks to extract data on intervention characteristics, implementation barriers/facilitators and applicability of international evidence. We performed a narrative synthesis grouped by intervention type and setting. Overall strength of evidence for admission reduction was assessed using a framework based on study design, study numbers and direction of effect.

Results

We included 124 publications/reports (30 from the UK). Integrated care and quality improvement programmes providing additional support to care homes (e.g. the English Care Homes Vanguard initiatives and hospital-based services in Australia) appeared to reduce unplanned admissions relative to usual care. Simpler training and staff development initiatives showed mixed results, as did interventions aimed at tackling specific problems (e.g. medication review). Advance care planning was key to the success of most quality improvement programmes but do-not-hospitalise orders were problematic. Qualitative research identified tensions affecting decision-making involving paramedics, care home staff and residents/family carers. The best way to reduce end-of-life admissions through access to palliative care was unclear in the face of inconsistent and generally low-quality evidence.

Conclusions

Effective implementation of interventions at various stages of residents' care pathways may reduce unplanned admissions. Most interventions are complex and require adaptation to local contexts. Work at the interface between health and social care is key to successful implementation.

Limitations

Much of the evidence identified was of low quality because of factors such as uncontrolled study designs and small sample size. Meta-analysis was not possible.

Future work

We identified a need for improved economic evidence and the evaluation of integrated care models of the type delivered by hospital-based teams. Researchers should carefully consider what is realistic in terms of study design and data collection given the current context of extreme pressure on care homes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO database CRD42021289418.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (award number NIHR133884) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The role of vaccination in COPD: influenza, SARS-CoV-2, pneumococcus, pertussis, RSV and varicella zoster virus

Exacerbations of COPD are associated with worsening of the airflow obstruction, hospitalisation, reduced quality of life, disease progression and death. At least 70% of COPD exacerbations are infectious in origin, with respiratory viruses identified in approximately 30% of cases. Despite long-standing recommendations to vaccinate patients with COPD, vaccination rates remain suboptimal in this population.Streptococcus pneumoniae is one of the leading morbidity and mortality causes of lower respiratory tract infections. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved pneumococcal conjugate vaccines that showed strong immunogenicity against all 20 included serotypes. Influenza is the second most common virus linked to severe acute exacerbations of COPD. The variable vaccine efficacy across virus subtypes and the impaired immune response are significant drawbacks in the influenza vaccination strategy. High-dose and adjuvant vaccines are new approaches to tackle these problems. Respiratory syncytial virus is another virus known to cause acute exacerbations of COPD. The vaccine candidate RSVPreF3 is the first authorised for the prevention of RSV in adults ≥60 years and might help to reduce acute exacerbations of COPD. The 2023 Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease report recommends zoster vaccination to protect against shingles for people with COPD over 50 years.

Humoral and Cellular Immunity Induced by Adjuvanted and Standard Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Older Nursing Home Residents

BACKGROUND

Despite wide use of adjuvanted influenza vaccine in nursing home residents (NHR), little immunogenicity data exist for this population.

METHODS

We collected blood from NHR (n = 85) living in nursing homes participating in a cluster randomized clinical trial comparing MF59-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aTIV) with nonadjuvanted vaccine (TIV) (parent trial, NCT02882100). NHR received either vaccine during the 2016-2017 influenza season. We assessed cellular and humoral immunity using flow cytometry and hemagglutinin inhibition, antineuraminidase (enzyme-linked lectin assay), and microneutralization assays.

RESULTS

Both vaccines were similarly immunogenic and induced antigen-specific antibodies and T cells, but aTIV specifically induced significantly larger 28 days after vaccination (D28) titers against A/H3N2 neuraminidase than TIV.

CONCLUSIONS

NHRs respond immunologically to TIV and aTIV. From these data, the larger aTIV-induced antineuraminidase response at D28 may help explain the increased clinical protection observed in the parent clinical trial for aTIV over TIV in NHR during the A/H3N2-dominant 2016-2017 influenza season. Additionally, a decline back to prevaccination titers at 6 months after vaccination emphasizes the importance of annual vaccination against influenza.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02882100.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Use of Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Enhanced vaccines (e.g., containing adjuvants) have shown increased immunogenicity and effectiveness in older adults, who often respond sub-optimally to conventional influenza vaccines. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an inactivated, seasonal, MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) for use in adults ≥ 65 years in Ireland.

METHODS

A published dynamic influenza model incorporating social contact, population immunity, and epidemiological data was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of aQIV in adults ≥ 65 years of age compared with a non-adjuvanted QIV. Sensitivity analysis was performed for influenza incidence, relative vaccine effectiveness, excess mortality, and the impact on bed occupancy from co-circulating influenza and COVID-19.

RESULTS

The use of aQIV resulted in discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of EUR 2420/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and EUR 12,970/QALY from societal and payer perspectives, respectively, both of which are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of EUR 45,000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that aQIV was effective in most scenarios, except when relative vaccine effectiveness compared to QIV was below 3%, and resulted in a modest reduction in excess bed occupancy.

CONCLUSION

The use of aQIV for adults ≥ 65 years old in Ireland was shown to be highly cost-effective from both payer and societal perspectives.

Which interventions are effective at decreasing or increasing emergency department attendances or hospital admissions from long-term care facilities? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

UK long-term care facility residents account for 185 000 emergency hospital admissions each year. Avoidance of unnecessary hospital transfers benefits residents, reduces demand on the healthcare systems but is difficult to implement. We synthesised evidence on interventions that influence unplanned hospital admissions or attendances by long-term care facility residents.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2012 to 2022, building on a review published in 2013. We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated interventions that influence (decrease or increase) acute hospital admissions or attendances of long-term care facility residents. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed using Cochrane Risk Of Bias-2 and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Forty-three randomised studies were included in this review. A narrative synthesis was conducted and the weight of evidence described with vote counting. Advance care planning and goals of care setting appear to be effective at reducing hospitalisations from long-term care facilities. Other effective interventions, in order of increasing risk of bias, were: nurse practitioner/specialist input, palliative care intervention, influenza vaccination and enhancing access to intravenous therapies in long-term care facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors that affect hospitalisation and emergency department attendances of long-term care facility residents are complex. This review supports the already established use of advance care planning and influenza vaccination to reduce unscheduled hospital attendances. It is likely that more than one intervention will be needed to impact on healthcare usage across the long-term care facility population. The findings of this review are useful to identify effective interventions that can be combined, as well as highlighting interventions that either need evaluation or are not effective at decreasing healthcare usage.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020169604.

T Cell Transcriptional Signatures of Influenza A/H3N2 Antibody Response to High Dose Influenza and Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults

Older adults experience declining influenza vaccine-induced immunity and are at higher risk of influenza and its complications. For this reason, high dose (e.g., Fluzone) and adjuvanted (e.g., Fluad) vaccines are preferentially recommended for people age 65 years and older. However, T cell transcriptional activity shaping the humoral immune responses to Fluzone and Fluad vaccines in older adults is still poorly understood. We designed a study of 234 older adults (≥65 years old) who were randomly allocated to receive Fluzone or Fluad vaccine and provided blood samples at baseline and at Day 28 after immunization. We measured the humoral immune responses (hemagglutination inhibition/HAI antibody titer) to influenza A/H3N2 and performed mRNA-Seq transcriptional profiling in purified CD4⁺ T cells, in order to identify T cell signatures that might explain differences in humoral immune response by vaccine type. Given the large differences in formulation (higher antigen dose vs adjuvant), our hypothesis was that each vaccine elicited a distinct transcriptomic response after vaccination. Thus, the main focus of our study was to identify the differential gene expression influencing the antibody titer in the two vaccine groups. Our analyses identified three differentially expressed, functionally linked genes/proteins in CD4⁺ T cells: the calcium/calmodulin dependent serine/threonine kinase IV (CaMKIV); its regulator the TMEM38B/transmembrane protein 38B, involved in maintenance of intracellular Ca2⁺ release; and the transcriptional coactivator CBP/CREB binding protein, as regulators of transcriptional activity/function in CD4⁺ T cells that impact differences in immune response by vaccine type. Significantly enriched T cell-specific pathways/biological processes were also identified that point to the importance of genes/proteins involved in Th1/Th2 cell differentiation, IL-17 signaling, calcium signaling, Notch signaling, MAPK signaling, and regulation of TRP cation Ca2⁺ channels in humoral immunity after influenza vaccination. In summary, we identified the genes/proteins and pathways essential for cell activation and function in CD4⁺ T cells that are associated with differences in influenza vaccine-induced humoral immunity by vaccine type. These findings provide an additional mechanistic perspective for achieving protective immunity in older adults.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022-23 Influenza Season

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.

Adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted standard-dose influenza vaccines in preventing all-cause hospitalizations in the elderly: a cohort study with nested case-control analyses over 18 influenza seasons

BACKGROUND

The higher effectiveness of adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) versus non-adjuvanted (na) formulations in preventing all-cause hospitalization has been demonstrated for a single influenza season and in institutionalized elderly only. This study evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness for aTIV vs. non-adjuvanted trivalent (naTIV) and/or quadrivalent (naQIV) influenza vaccines in preventing all-cause hospitalizations across 18 influenza seasons in primary care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using Health Search Database, a nested case-control analysis was conducted in a cohort of older adults being vaccinated with aTIV or naTIV/naQIV. Conditional logistic regression was adopted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of all-cause hospitalizations occurred during the epidemic period.

RESULTS

Of 58,252 patients vaccinated with aTIV and naTIV/naQIV for the first time, 2,504 cases of all-cause hospitalization (3.46 per 1,000 person-weeks) during the 18 influenza seasons were identified. Compared with naTIV/naQIV, aTIV was associated with a 12% reduced the odds of all-cause hospitalizations (OR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

In an 18-season cohort of older adults, aTIV reduced the risk of all-cause hospitalizations when compared with naTIV/naQIV. Our findings confirm additional benefits for adjuvanted influenza vaccines in older adults.

Cost-Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccination Strategies in Adults: Older Adults Aged ≥65 Years, Adults Aged 50–64 Years, and At-Risk Adults Aged 19–64 Years

The high disease burden of influenza in elderly and chronically ill adults may be due to the suboptimal effectiveness and mismatch of the conventional trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent (QIV), adjuvanted trivalent (ATIV), and high-dose quadrivalent (HD-QIV) vaccines versus TIV used under the current Korean National Immunization Program (NIP) in older adults aged ≥65 years. We also evaluated the cost-effectiveness of programs for at-risk adults aged 19–64 and adults aged 50–64. A one-year static population model was used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative vaccination programs in each targeted group. Influenza-related parameters were derived from the National Health Insurance System claims database; other inputs were extracted from the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed from a societal perspective. In the base case analysis (older adults aged ≥65 years), HD-QIV was superior, with the lowest cost and highest utility. Compared with TIV, ATIV was cost-effective (ICER $34,314/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]), and QIV was not cost-effective (ICER $46,486/QALY). The cost-effectiveness of HD-QIV was robust for all parameters except for vaccine cost. The introduction of the influenza NIP was cost-effective or even cost-saving for the remaining targeted gr3oups, regardless of TIV or QIV.

Effectiveness of the Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults at High Risk of Influenza Complications

MF59^®-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) and high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) elicit an enhanced immune response in older adults compared to standard, quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4). We sought to determine the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aIIV3 versus IIV4 and HD-IIV3 in preventing influenza-related medical encounters in this retrospective cohort study involving adults ≥65 years with ≥1 health condition during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons. Data were obtained from primary and specialty care electronic medical records linked with pharmacy and medical claims. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) were derived from an inverse probability of treatment-weighted sample adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, vaccination week, and health status. rVE was determined using the formula (% rVE = 1 - OR_adjusted) × 100. Analysis sets included 1,755,420 individuals for the 2017-2018 season and 2,055,012 for the 2018-2019 season. Compared to IIV4, aIIV3 was 7.1% (95% confidence interval 3.3-10.8) and 20.4% (16.2-24.4) more effective at preventing influenza-related medical encounters in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 seasons, respectively. Comparable effectiveness was observed with HD-IIV3 across both seasons. Our results support improved effectiveness of aIIV3 vs IIV4 in a vulnerable population of older adults at high risk of influenza and its complications.

Cost-utility analysis of influenza vaccination in a population aged 65 years or older in Spain with a high-dose vaccine versus an adjuvanted vaccine

BACKGROUND

The normal ageing process is accompanied by immunosenescence and a progressive weakening of the immune system. High-dose inactivated influenza quadrivalent vaccine (HD-QIV) has shown greater immunogenicity, relative efficacy, and effectiveness than the standard-dose inactivated quadrivalent vaccine (SD-QIV). The aim of the study was to assess the cost-utility of an HD-QIV strategy compared with an adjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine (aTIV) strategy in the population above 65 years of age in Spain.

METHODS

We evaluated the public health and economic benefits of alternatives by using a decision-tree model, which included influenza cases, visits to the general practitioner (GP), visits to the emergency department (ED), hospitalisations, and mortality related to influenza. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for both epidemiological and economical sources of uncertainty.

RESULTS

Our results show that switching from aTIV strategy to HD-QIV would prevent 36,476 cases of influenza, 5,143 visits to GP, 1,054 visits to the ED, 9,193 episodes of hospitalisation due to influenza or pneumonia, and 357 deaths due to influenza - increasing 3,514 life-years and 3,167 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Healthcare costs increase by €78,874,301, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €24,353/QALY. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the results are rather robust.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows that HD-QIV in people over 65 years of age is an influenza-prevention strategy that is at least cost-effective, if not dominant, in Spain. It reduces cases of influenza, GP visits, hospitalisations, deaths, and associated healthcare costs.

Considering Frailty in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Development: How Geriatricians Can Assist

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted frail older adults, especially residents of long-term care (LTC) facilities. This has appropriately led to prioritization of frail older adults and LTC residents, and those who care for them, in the vaccination effort against COVID-19. Older adults have distinct immunological, clinical, and practical complexity, which can be understood through a lens of frailty. Even so, frailty has not been considered in studies of COVID-19 vaccines to date, leading to concerns that the vaccines have not been optimally tailored for and evaluated in this population even as vaccination programs are being implemented. This is an example of how vaccines are often not tested in Phase 1/2/3 clinical trials in the people most in need of protection. We argue that geriatricians, as frailty specialists, have much to contribute to the development, testing and implementation of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults. We discuss roles for geriatricians in ten stages of the vaccine development process, covering vaccine design, trial design, trial recruitment, establishment and interpretation of illness definitions, safety monitoring, consideration of relevant health measures such as frailty and function, analysis methods to account for frailty and differential vulnerability, contributions in regulatory and advisory roles, post-marketing surveillance, and program implementation and public health messaging. In presenting key recommendations pertinent to each stage, we hope to contribute to a dialogue on how to push the field of vaccinology to embrace the complexity of frailty. Making vaccines that can benefit frail older adults will benefit everyone in the fight against COVID-19.