Evaluation of cold-adapted, reassortant influenza B virus vaccines in elderly and chronically ill adults

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.

Influenza vaccine for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies, with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported. Influenza infection causes excess morbidity and mortality in people with COPD, but there is also the potential for influenza vaccination to cause adverse effects, or not to be cost effective.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether influenza vaccination in people with COPD reduces respiratory illness, reduces mortality, is associated with excess adverse events, and is cost effective.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, two clinical trials registries, and reference lists of articles. A number of drug companies we contacted also provided references. The latest search was carried out in December 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared live or inactivated virus vaccines with placebo, either alone or with another vaccine, in people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. All entries were double-checked. We contacted study authors and drug companies for missing information. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs with 6750 participants, but only six of these included people with COPD (2469 participants). The others were conducted on elderly and high-risk individuals, some of whom had chronic lung disease. Interventions compared with placebo were inactivated virus injections and live attenuated intranasal virus vaccines. Some studies compared intra-muscular inactivated vaccine and intranasal live attenuated vaccine with intra-muscular inactivated vaccine and intranasal placebo. Studies were conducted in the UK, USA and Thailand.Inactivated vaccine reduced the total number of exacerbations per vaccinated participant compared with those who received placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.11; P = 0.006; two RCTs, 180 participants; low quality evidence). This was due to the reduction in 'late' exacerbations, occurring after three or four weeks (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.18; P = 0.0004; two RCTs, 180 participants; low quality evidence). Both in people with COPD, and in older people (only a minority of whom had COPD), there were significantly more local adverse reactions in people who had received the vaccine, but the effects were generally mild and transient.There was no evidence of an effect of intranasal live attenuated virus when this was added to inactivated intramuscular vaccination.Two studies evaluating mortality for influenza vaccine versus placebo were too small to have detected any effect on mortality. However, a large study (N=2215) noted that there was no difference in mortality when adding live attenuated virus to inactivated virus vaccination, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It appeared, from the limited number of RCTs we were able to include, all of which were more than a decade old, that inactivated vaccine reduced exacerbations in people with COPD. The size of effect was similar to that seen in large observational studies, and was due to a reduction in exacerbations occurring three or more weeks after vaccination, and due to influenza. There was a mild increase in transient local adverse effects with vaccination, but no evidence of an increase in early exacerbations. Addition of live attenuated virus to the inactivated vaccine was not shown to confer additional benefit.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 to 31 December 2016); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

Influenza vaccination for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: understanding immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness

Influenza infection is an important cause of global mortality and morbidity with the greatest impact on older people and those with chronic disease. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are particularly vulnerable to influenza, with evidence for increased incidence and severity of infection. In this patient group influenza is associated with exacerbations and pneumonia which result in a significant healthcare burden and premature mortality. Influenza vaccination and in particular the use of the seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) is recommended for patients with COPD. The evidence base for its effects in this population is, however, limited. Available data suggest that immunogenicity is variable in COPD but the underlying mechanisms are not completely understood. The contribution of age, disease severity, comorbidity and treatments to vaccine responses has only been investigated in a limited manner. Existing data suggest that key immune mechanisms governing T- and B-cell responses are adversely affected by these factors. The efficacy of TIV has been studied in a number of small clinical trials which form the basis of a Cochrane review. Here evidence for effect is conflicting depending on individual trial design and inclusions. Overall, TIV offers protection against influenza infection in the trial setting but further studies are required to stratify patients and enable prediction of inadequate responses. Larger-scale clinical studies have largely been observational and have often been conducted in consort with pneumonia vaccination. Overall the mortality benefit of TIV in COPD is suggested by a number studies but the impact on exacerbation prevention is less clear. Influenza vaccination currently plays an important role in disease prevention in COPD. However, we postulate that a more in-depth understanding of mechanisms of response in the context of a highly heterogeneous disease will lead to a more informed approach to vaccination and greater benefit for the individual patient.

Assessing the safety of influenza vaccination in specific populations: children and the elderly

Comprehensive monitoring of the safety of influenza vaccines remains a public health priority, particularly as immunization coverage increases across different age groups at the global level. In this review, the authors provide state-of-the-art knowledge on the safety of influenza immunization among children and the elderly. The authors review the safety information in each group separately for inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines. Adverse events of special concern including febrile seizure, narcolepsy, asthma and Guillain-Barré syndrome are covered under specific considerations. The authors discuss the current status of the field, particularly the use of new technologies for influenza vaccines and their potential safety profile.

Influenza-specific T cells from older people are enriched in the late effector subset and their presence inversely correlates with vaccine response

T cells specific for persistent pathogens accumulate with age and express markers of immune senescence. In contrast, much less is known about the state of T cell memory for acutely infecting pathogens. Here we examined T cell responses to influenza in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells from older (>64) and younger (<40) donors using whole virus restimulation with influenza A (A/PR8/34) ex vivo. Although most donors had pre-existing influenza reactive T cells as measured by IFNγ production, older donors had smaller populations of influenza-responsive T cells than young controls and had lost a significant proportion of their CD45RA-negative functional memory population. Despite this apparent dysfunction in a proportion of the older T cells, both old and young donors' T cells from 2008 could respond to A/California/07/2009 ex vivo. For HLA-A2+ donors, MHC tetramer staining showed that a higher proportion of influenza-specific memory CD8 T cells from the 65+ group co-express the markers killer cell lectin-like receptor G1 (KLRG1) and CD57 compared to their younger counterparts. These markers have previously been associated with a late differentiation state or immune senescence. Thus, memory CD8 T cells to an acutely infecting pathogen show signs of advanced differentiation and functional deterioration with age. There was a significant negative correlation between the frequency of KLRG1(+)CD57(+) influenza M1-specific CD8 T cells pre-vaccination and the ability to make antibodies in response to vaccination with seasonal trivalent inactivated vaccine, whereas no such trend was observed when the total CD8(+)KLRG1(+)CD57(+) population was analyzed. These results suggest that the state of the influenza-specific memory CD8 T cells may be a predictive indicator of a vaccine responsive healthy immune system in old age.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, complications and mortality in the elderly. To identify and appraise comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in the elderly. To document types and frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in the elderly.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October Week 1 2009); EMBASE (1974 to October 2009) and Web of Science (1974 to October 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies. Overall we identified 100 data sets. We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness. Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants). The remainder of our evidence base included non-RCTs. Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination of elderly individuals is recommended worldwide and has been targeted toward the elderly and those at serious risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to review the evidence of efficacy, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccines in individuals aged 65 years or older.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases on The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (Issue 1, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1966 to March Week 3 2006); EMBASE (Dialog 1974 to 1979; SilverPlatter 1980 to December 2005); Biological Abstracts (SilverPlatter 1969 to December 2004); and Science Citation Index (Web of Science 1974 to December 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised, quasi-randomised, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-four studies were included in the efficacy / effectiveness assessment, resulting in 96 data sets. In homes for elderly individuals (with good vaccine match and high viral circulation) the effectiveness of vaccines against ILI was 23% (6% to 36%) and non-significant against influenza (RR 1.04: 95% CI 0.43 to 2.51). We found no correlation between vaccine coverage and ILI attack rate. Well matched vaccines prevented pneumonia (VE 46%; 30% to 58%), hospital admission (VE 45%; 16% to 64%) and deaths from influenza or pneumonia (VE 42%, 17% to 59%). In elderly individuals living in the community, vaccines were not significantly effective against influenza (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.01), ILI (RR 1.05: 95% CI 0.58 to 1.89), or pneumonia (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.20). Well matched vaccines prevented hospital admission for influenza and pneumonia (VE 26%; 12% to 38%) and all-cause mortality (VE 42%; 24% to 55%). After adjustment for confounders, vaccine performance was improved for admissions to hospital for influenza or pneumonia (VE* 27%; 21% to 33%), respiratory diseases (VE* 22%; 15% to 28%) and cardiac disease (VE* 24%; 18% to 30%); and for all-cause mortality (VE* 47%; 39% to 54%). The public health safety profiles of the vaccines appear to be acceptable.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In long-term care facilities, where vaccination is most effective against complications, the aims of the vaccination campaign are fulfilled, at least in part. However, according to reliable evidence the usefulness of vaccines in the community is modest. The apparent high effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing death from all causes may reflect a baseline imbalance in health status and other systematic differences in the two groups of participants.

Phase I evaluation of intranasal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with nontoxigenic Escherichia coli enterotoxin and novel biovector as mucosal adjuvants, using adult volunteers

Trivalent influenza virus A/Duck/Singapore (H5N3), A/Panama (H3N2), and B/Guandong vaccine preparations were used in a randomized, controlled, dose-ranging phase I study. The vaccines were prepared from highly purified hemagglutinin and neuraminidase from influenza viruses propagated in embryonated chicken eggs and inactivated with formaldehyde. We assigned 100 participants to six vaccine groups, as follows. Three intranasally vaccinated groups received 7.5-microg doses of hemagglutinin from each virus strain with either 3, 10, or 30 microg of heat-labile Escherichia coli enterotoxin (LTK63) and 990 microg of a supramolecular biovector; one intranasally vaccinated group was given 7.5-microg doses of hemagglutinin with 30 microg of LTK63 without the biovector; and another intranasally vaccinated group received saline solution as a placebo. The final group received an intramuscular vaccine containing 15 microg hemagglutinin from each strain with MF59 adjuvant. The immunogenicity of two intranasal doses, delivered by syringe as drops into both nostrils with an interval of 1 week between, was compared with that of two inoculations by intramuscular delivery 3 weeks apart. The intramuscular and intranasal vaccine formulations were both immunogenic but stimulated different limbs of the immune system. The largest increase in circulating antibodies occurred in response to intramuscular vaccination; the largest mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) response occurred in response to mucosal vaccination. Current licensing criteria for influenza vaccines in the European Union were satisfied by serum hemagglutination inhibition responses to A/Panama and B/Guandong hemagglutinins given with MF59 adjuvant by injection and to B/Guandong hemagglutinin given intranasally with the highest dose of LTK63 and the biovector. Geometric mean serum antibody titers by hemagglutination inhibition and microneutralization were significantly higher for each virus strain at 3 and 6 weeks in recipients of the intramuscular vaccine than in recipients of the intranasal vaccine. The immunogenicity of the intranasally delivered experimental vaccine varied by influenza virus strain. Mucosal IgA responses to A/Duck/Singapore (H5N3), A/Panama (H3N2), and B/Guandong were highest in participants given 30 microg LTK63 with the biovector, occurring in 7/15 (47%; P=0.0103), 8/15 (53%; P=0.0362), and 14/15 (93%; P=0.0033) participants, respectively, compared to the placebo group. The addition of the biovector to the vaccine given with 30 microg LTK63 enhanced mucosal IgA responses to A/Duck/Singapore (H5N3) (P=0.0491) and B/Guandong (P=0.0028) but not to A/Panama (H3N2). All vaccines were well tolerated.

Influenza vaccine for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported. Influenza infection causes excess morbidity and mortality in COPD patients but there is also the potential for influenza vaccination to cause adverse effects or not to be cost effective.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence from RCTs for a treatment effect of influenza vaccination in COPD subjects. Outcomes of interest were exacerbation rates, hospitalisations, mortality, lung function and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, and reference lists of articles. References were also provided by a number of drug companies we contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared live or inactivated virus vaccines with placebo, either alone or with another vaccine in persons with COPD. Studies of people with asthma were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data. All entries were double checked. Study authors and drug companies were contacted for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials were included but only six of these were specifically performed in COPD patients. The others were conducted on elderly and high-risk individuals, some of whom had chronic lung disease. Inactivated vaccine in COPD patients resulted in a significant reduction in the total number of exacerbations per vaccinated subject compared with those who received placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.11, P = 0.006). This was due to the reduction in "late" exacerbations occurring after three or four weeks (WMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.18, P = 0.0004). In Howells 1961, the number of patients experiencing late exacerbations was also significantly less (odds ratio 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.45, P = 0.002). Both Howells 1961 and Wongsurakiat 2004 found that inactivated influenza vaccination reduced influenza -related respiratory infections (WMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.48, P = 0.0005). In both COPD patient and in elderly patients (only a minority of whom had COPD), there was a significant increase in the occurrence of local adverse reactions in vaccinees, but the effects were generally mild and transient. There was no evidence of an effect of intranasal live attenuated virus when this was added to inactivated intramuscular vaccination. The studies are too small to have detected any effect on mortality. An updated search conducted in September 2001 did not yield any further studies. A search in 2003 yielded two further reports of the same eligible study Gorse 2003. A search in 2004 yielded two reports of the another eligible study Wongsurakiat 2004. The author informed us of another report of the same study Wongsurakiat 2004/2.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It appears, from the limited number of studies performed, that inactivated vaccine reduces exacerbations in COPD patients. The size of effect was similar to that seen in large observational studies, and was due to a reduction in exacerbations occurring three or more weeks after vaccination, and due to influenza. There is a mild increase in transient local adverse effects with vaccination, but no evidence of an increase in early exacerbations.

Cold-adapted live influenza vaccine versus inactivated vaccine: systemic vaccine reactions, local and systemic antibody response, and vaccine efficacy. A meta-analysis

Since the 1940s, influenza vaccines are inactivated and purified virus or virus subunit preparations (IIV) administered by the intramuscular route. Since decades, attempts have been made to construct, as an alternative, attenuated live influenza vaccines (LIV) for intranasal administration. Presently, the most successful LIV is derived from the cold-adapted master strains A/Ann Arbor/6/60 (H2N2) and B/Ann Arbor/1/66 (AA-LIV, for Ann-Arbor-derived live influenza vaccine). It has been claimed that AA-LIV is more efficacious than IIV. In order to assess differences between the two vaccines with respect to systemic reactogenicity, antibody response, and efficacy, we performed a meta-analysis on eighteen randomised comparative clinical trials involving a total of 5000 vaccinees of all ages. Pooled odds ratios (AA-LIV versus IIV) were calculated according to the random effects model. The two vaccines were associated with similarly low frequencies of systemic vaccine reactions (pooled odds ratio: 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.24). AA-LIV induced significantly lower levels of serum haemagglutination inhibiting antibody and significantly greater levels of local IgA antibody (influenza virus-specific respiratory IgA assayed by ELISA in nasal wash specimens) than IIV. Yet, although they predominantly stimulate different antibody compartments, the two vaccines were similarly efficacious in preventing culture-positive influenza illness. In all trials assessing clinical efficacy, the odds ratios were not significantly different from one (point of equivalence). The pooled odds ratio for influenza A-H3N2 was 1.50 (95% CI: 0.80-2.82), and for A-H1N1, 1.03 (95% CI: 0.58-1.82). The choice between the two vaccine types should be based on weighing the advantage of the attractive non-invasive mode of administration of AA-LIV, against serious concerns about the biological risks inherent to large-scale use of infectious influenza virus, in particular the hazard of gene reassortment with non-human influenza virus strains.

Live attenuated vaccines against influenza; an historical review

Live attenuated vaccines administered directly to the respiratory tract offer the promise of providing more effective immunity against influenza than subunit or split inactivated vaccines. Evidence has accumulated in recent years that immunological responses relevant to both the prevention of and recovery from influenza are best induced by natural infection. The ease with which the genes of influenza viruses reassort when two or more viruses infect a single cell has been exploited as a means of rapidly producing attenuated vaccines. Donor strains that have been shown by extensive testing to be fully attenuated are used to co-infect cells with contemporary epidemic strains to produce reassortants with the required degree of avirulence and the surface antigens of the epidemic strain. Reassortants prepared from cold-adapted mutants of both influenza A and B viruses have been widely shown from clinical trials in both the United States and Russia over many years to be well tolerated in both adults and children and to be highly efficacious.

Influenza: vaccination and treatment

Few conditions exert such an enormous toll of absenteeism, suffering, medical consultations, hospitalization, death and economic loss as influenza. Patients at high risk of complications and mortality include the elderly and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. The outbreak in 1997 in Hong Kong, of avian H5N1 influenza in man, which resulted in six deaths among 18 hospitalized cases, and the recent isolation of H9N2 viruses from two children in Hong Kong, are reminders that preparation must be made for the next pandemic. Since the 1970s, efforts to control influenza have mostly focussed on the split product and surface antigen vaccines. These vaccines are of proven efficacy in healthy adults and are effective in elderly people with and without medical conditions putting them at high risk of complications and death following influenza infection. However, vaccine coverage is patchy and often low, and outbreaks of influenza are not uncommon in well-immunized residents of nursing homes. New vaccines and methods of vaccine delivery are being developed in attempts to overcome the limitations of existing vaccines. The antiviral drugs amantadine and rimantadine were developed in the 1960s, but have not been used widely due to their spectrum of activity, rapid emergence of resistance, and adverse effects associated with amantadine. The site of enzyme activity of the influenza neuraminidase is highly conserved between types, subtypes and strains of influenza and has emerged as the target of an exciting new class of antiviral agents that are effective both prophylactically and as therapy.

A novel bioadhesive intranasal delivery system for inactivated influenza vaccines

The aim of the current studies was to evaluate a bioadhesive delivery system for intranasal administration of a flu vaccine, in combination with a mucosal adjuvant (LTK63). A commercially available influenza vaccine, containing hemagglutinin (HA) from influenza/A Johannesberg H1N1 1996, and LTK63 or LTR72 adjuvants, which are genetically detoxified derivatives of heat labile enterotoxin from Escherichia coli, were administered IN in a bioadhesive delivery system, which comprised esterified hyaluronic acid (HYAFF) microspheres, to mice, rabbits and micro-pigs at days 0 and 28. For comparison, additional groups of animals were immunized intranasally with the HA vaccine alone, with soluble HA+LTK63, or IM with HA. In all three species, the groups of animals receiving IN immunization with the bioadhesive microsphere formulations, including LT mutants, showed significantly enhanced serum IgG responses (P<0.05) and higher hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers in comparison to the other groups. In addition, the bioadhesive formulation also showed a significantly enhanced nasal wash IgA response (P<0.05). Most encouragingly, in pigs, the bioadhesive microsphere vaccine delivery system induced serum immune responses following IN immunization, which were significantly more potent than those induced by traditional IM immunization at the same vaccine dose (P<0.05).

Immunogenicity and efficacy of Russian live attenuated and US inactivated influenza vaccines used alone and in combination in nursing home residents

The immunogenicity and efficacy of Russian live attenuated and US inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines administered alone or in three different combinations were evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of 614 elderly or chronically ill nursing home residents in St. Petersburg, Russia during the 1996-97 influenza season. Postvaccination serum antibody responses were more frequent among individuals administered the combination vaccines than among those vaccinated with live or inactivated vaccine alone. Only individuals who received live vaccine, alone or in combination with inactivated vaccine, achieved significant postvaccination increases in virus-specific nasal IgA. Efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in vaccinated versus nonvaccinated individuals was 67% (95%CI, 36-81%) for recipients of a combination of the vaccines compared with 51% (95%CI, -17-79%) for recipients of live vaccine alone and 50% (95%CI, -26-80%) for recipients of inactivated vaccine alone. These results suggest that administration of a combination of influenza vaccines may provide a strategy for improved influenza vaccination of elderly people.

Promises and challenges of live-attenuated intranasal influenza vaccines across the age spectrum: a review

Despite the availability of inactivated influenza vaccines, influenza continues to cause considerable mortality in the elderly, and morbidity in all age groups. Cold-adapted, live-attenuated, intranasally administered influenza vaccines, first developed in the 1960s, have been tested in more than 10,000 volunteers and have been shown to be safe, well-tolerated, and immunogenic. Recent trials suggest that efficacy in children may be superior to that of inactivated vaccines, and efficacy in healthy adults may be similar to that of inactivated vaccines, although there are limited data comparing the two vaccines directly. Advantages of the live-attenuated vaccines include acceptability, ease of administration, and the potential for mass immunization. The possibility of substantially higher vaccination rates across all age groups brings promise for the development of herd immunity and greatly improved control of influenza in the future.

Influenza vaccine for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported. Influenza infection causes excess morbidity and mortality in COPD patients but there is also the potential for influenza vaccination to cause adverse effects or not to be cost effective.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence from RCTs for a treatment effect of influenza vaccination in COPD subjects. Outcomes of interest were exacerbation rates, hospitalisations, mortality, lung function and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. References were also provided by a number of drug companies we contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared live or inactivated virus vaccines with placebo, either alone or with another vaccine in persons with COPD. Studies of people with asthma were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data. All entries were double checked. Study authors and drug companies were contacted for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included but only four of these were specifically performed in COPD patients. The others were conducted on elderly and high-risk individuals, some of whom had chronic lung disease. In one study of inactivated vaccine in COPD patients there was a significant reduction in the total number of exacerbations per vaccinated subject compared with those who received placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.75 to -0.15, p = 0.004). This difference was mainly due to the reduction in exacerbations occurring after 3 weeks (WMD -0.44, (95% CI -0.68 to -0.20, p<0.001). The number of patients experiencing late exacerbations was also significantly less (OR= 0.13, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.45, p=0.002). There was no evidence of an effect of intranasal live attenuated virus when this was added to inactivated intramuscular vaccination. In studies in elderly patients (only a minority of whom had COPD), there was a significant increase in the occurrence of local adverse reactions in vaccinees, but the effects were generally mild and transient.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

It appears, from the limited number of studies performed, that inactivated vaccine may reduce exacerbations in COPD patients. The size of effect was similar to that seen in large observational studies, and was due to a reduction in exacerbations occurring three or more weeks after vaccination. In elderly, high risk patients there was an increase in adverse effects with vaccination, but these are seen early and are usually mild and transient.

Respiratory viral infections in the elderly

Viral respiratory infections represent a significant challenge for those interested in improving the health of the elderly. Influenza continues to result in a large burden of excess morbidity and mortality. Two effective measures, inactivated influenza vaccine, and the antiviral drugs rimantadine and amantadine, are currently available for control of this disease. Inactivated vaccine should be given yearly to all of those over the age of 65, as well as younger individuals with high-risk medical conditions and individuals delivering care to such persons. Live, intranasally administered attenuated influenza vaccines are also in development, and may be useful in combination with inactivated vaccine in the elderly. The antiviral drugs amantadine and rimantadine are effective in the treatment and prevention of influenza A, although rimantadine is associated with fewer side-effects. Recently, the inhaled neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir, which is active against both influenza A and B viruses, was licensed for use in uncomplicated influenza. The role of this drug in treatment and prevention of influenza in the elderly remains to be determined. Additional neuraminidase inhibitors are also being developed. In addition, to influenza, respiratory infections with respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus, rhinovirus, and coronavirus have been identified as potential problems in the elderly. With increasing attention, it is probable that the impact of these infections in this age group will be more extensively documented. Understanding of the immunology and pathogenesis of these infections in elderly adults is in its infancy, and considerable additional work will need to be performed towards development of effective control measures.

Influenza vaccines: present and future

Immunization is the most feasible method for preventing influenza. Vaccination against influenza is recommended for everyone 65 years of age and older and for persons less than 65 years of age who are at risk for developing complications of influenza. Immune correlates of protection have been established, and a global network is in place to monitor the appearance and circulation of antigenic variants of influenza viruses, as well as the appearance of novel subtypes of influenza A. Antigenic and genetic analyses of circulating viruses and testing of serum from vaccine recipients guide vaccine composition updates. The efficacy of influenza vaccines depends in part on the closeness of the antigenic match between the vaccine strain and the epidemic strain. Currently licensed influenza vaccines are trivalent, formalin-inactivated, egg-derived vaccines; their efficacy ranges from 70 to 90% in young, healthy populations when there is a close antigenic match between vaccine strains and epidemic strains. Development of intranasally administered alternative vaccines and improvement of the existing vaccine are areas of active research. A trivalent, ca live vaccine is the most promising LAIV candidate. In a field trial, efficacy rates of LAIV in young children were 96% against influenza A (H3N2) and 91% against influenza B. However, few data are available to compare this formulation of the trivalent ca live vaccine with the trivalent, inactivated vaccine. Influenza vaccine recommendations will most likely be revised on licensure of LAIV; each vaccine may offer distinct advantages in specific populations.

Prevention of influenza in long-term-care facilities. Long-Term-Care Committee of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Influenza is a frequent cause of epidemic and endemic respiratory illness in long-term-care facilities (LTCFs), resulting in considerable morbidity and mortality. Detection of influenza outbreaks in this setting can be difficult, because the clinical presentation in older adults is atypical and other pathogens also cause influenza-like illness (ILI) during the influenza season. Use of the standard case definition for influenza has not been effective in detecting episodes in residents of LTCFs. Alternative case-definitions that reflect the atypical presentation of influenza in this population have been recommended but not validated. The use of rapid tests for the detection of influenza in conjunction with more sensitive case definitions of ILI may lead to the earlier detection of influenza outbreaks in LTCFs, earlier initiation of infection control measures, and reduction in transmission. The definition of outbreak, eg, the number of episodes of ILI or episodes of confirmed influenza A that would result in the initiation of antiviral chemoprophylaxis, remains controversial in this setting. The use of newer antivirals could limit the side effects seen in older adults in LTCFs. However, annual vaccination of residents and staff remains the most effective way to prevent the introduction of influenza A or influenza B into LTCFs. In addition, vaccination of LTCF residents reduces rates of illness and pneumonia due to influenza, as well as cardiopulmonary exacerbation, hospitalization, and death.

Intranasal immunization of mice with influenza vaccine in combination with the adjuvant LT-R72 induces potent mucosal and serum immunity which is stronger than that with traditional intramuscular immunization

Immunization of mice by the intranasal route with influenza virus hemagglutinin in combination with the mutant Escherichia coli heat-labile enterotoxin R72 (LT-R72) induced significantly enhanced serum and mucosal antibodies, surpassing, in most cases, responses achieved by traditional intramuscular immunization using inactivated split influenza vaccine. Furthermore, intranasal immunization with LT-R72 induced a potent serum immunoglobulin G2a response, indicating that this adjuvant has Th1 character.

Evaluation of live, cold-adapted influenza A and B virus vaccines in elderly and high-risk subjects

We have evaluated the use of live cold-adapted influenza A and B virus vaccines in the elderly. Cold-adapted influenza A and B virus vaccines are safe and modestly immunogenic in individuals over 65 years of age. However, our studies and those of other groups have shown that immune response to cold-adapted vaccines in this age group are modest. Administration of combined cold-adapted influenza A and inactivated influenza vaccine has resulted in slightly higher frequencies of local and systemic humoral immune responses than inactivated vaccine alone in some, but not all, studies. In a double-blind field trial conducted in nursing homes over a 3 year period, combined cold-adapted influenza A (H3N2) and trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine resulted in a 60% decrease (95% CI, 18-82%) in the rate of laboratory documented influenza A compared with inactivated vaccine alone. Further studies of multivalent cold-adapted influenza vaccines used in combination with inactivated vaccine should be performed.