Comparative safety and efficacy of subcutaneous and intradermal administration of inactivated Japanese encephalitis vaccine during predeployment preparations in the Australian Defence Force

Could intradermal be an economical alternative route of administration for Japanese encephalitis vaccines?

Highlight Uptake of Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine remains low among travellers, with cost of vaccines likely being one of the main hurdles. We found that smaller doses of JE vaccine administered via intradermal (ID) had similar effect on seroconversion than standard doses administered via subcutaneous. ID is a cheaper yet effective route of JE vaccine administration, and could potentially increase vaccination uptake among travellers.

Fractional dose of intradermal compared to intramuscular and subcutaneous vaccination - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vaccine supply shortages are of global concern. We hypothesise that intradermal (ID) immunisation as an alternative to standard routes might augment vaccine supply utilisation without loss of vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if: licensed, currently available vaccines were used; fractional dose of ID was compared to IM or SC immunisation; primary immunisation schedules were evaluated; immunogenicity, safety data and/or cost were reported. We calculated risk differences (RD). Studies were included in meta-analysis if: a pre-defined immune correlate of protection was assessed; WHO-recommend schedules and antigen doses were used in the control group; the same schedule was applied to both ID and control groups (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020151725).

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 5,873 articles, of which 156 articles were included; covering 12 vaccines. Non-inferiority of immunogenicity with 20-60% of antigen used with ID vaccines was demonstrated for influenza (H1N1: RD -0·01; 95% CI -0·02, 0·01; I2 = 55%, H2N3: RD 0·00; 95% CI -0·01, 0·01; I2 = 0%, B: RD -0·00; 95% CI -0·02, 0·01; I2 = 72%), rabies (RD 0·00; 95% CI -0·02, 0·02; I2 = 0%), and hepatitis B vaccines (RD -0·01; 95% CI -0·04, 0·02; I2 = 20%). Clinical trials on the remaining vaccines yielded promising results, but are scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potential for inoculum/antigen dose-reduction by using ID immunisation as compared to standard routes of administration for some vaccines (e.g. influenza, rabies). When suitable, vaccine trials should include an ID arm.

Vaccines for preventing Japanese encephalitis

BACKGROUND

Vaccination is recognized as the only practical measure for preventing Japanese encephalitis. Production shortage, costs, and issues of licensure impair vaccination programmes in many affected countries. Concerns over vaccine effectiveness and safety also have a negative impact on acceptance and uptake.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate vaccines for preventing Japanese encephalitis in terms of effectiveness, adverse events, and immunogenicity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In March 2007, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BIOSIS, and reference lists. We also attempted to contact corresponding authors and vaccine companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, comparing Japanese encephalitis vaccines with placebo (inert agent or unrelated vaccine), no intervention, or alternative Japanese encephalitis vaccine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Dichotomous data were compared with relative risks and a 95% confidence interval (CI), and converted into percentage vaccine efficacy.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 358,750 participants were included. These trials investigated two available and three pre-licensure vaccines. Two RCTs assessing efficacy of the commercially available inactivated Nakayama vaccine were identified. A two-dose schedule of the licensed vaccine provided significant protection of 95% (95% CI 10% to 100%) for one year only, while two doses of an unpurified precursor vaccine protected children by 81% (95% CI 45% to 94%) in year one and by 59% (95% CI 2% to 83%) in year two. Serious adverse events were not observed. Mild and moderate episodes of injection site soreness, fever, headache, and nausea were reported in less than 6% of children receiving inactivated vaccine compared to 0.6% of unvaccinated controls. One cluster-RCT compared the live-attenuated SA14-14-2 vaccine (widely used in China) with no intervention measuring adverse events. Fever was reported in 2.7% of vaccinees compared to 3.1% of controls, while 0.1% of both groups suffered diarrhoea or seizures. Four small pre-licensure RCTs assessing a genetically engineered vaccine and two cell culture-derived inactivated vaccines revealed high immunogenicity and relative safety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the three currently used vaccines has been assessed for efficacy in a RCT. Other RCTs have assessed their safety, however, and they appear to cause only occasional mild or moderate adverse events. Further trials of effectiveness and safety are needed for the currently used vaccines, especially concerning dose levels and schedules. Trials investigating several new vaccines are planned or in progress.