1
|
Fonville JM, Wilks SH, James SL, Fox A, Ventresca M, Aban M, Xue L, Jones TC, Le NMH, Pham QT, Tran ND, Wong Y, Mosterin A, Katzelnick LC, Labonte D, Le TT, van der Net G, Skepner E, Russell CA, Kaplan TD, Rimmelzwaan GF, Masurel N, de Jong JC, Palache A, Beyer WEP, Le QM, Nguyen TH, Wertheim HFL, Hurt AC, Osterhaus ADME, Barr IG, Fouchier RAM, Horby PW, Smith DJ. Antibody landscapes after influenza virus infection or vaccination. Science 2014; 346:996-1000. [PMID: 25414313 DOI: 10.1126/science.1256427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 313] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
We introduce the antibody landscape, a method for the quantitative analysis of antibody-mediated immunity to antigenically variable pathogens, achieved by accounting for antigenic variation among pathogen strains. We generated antibody landscapes to study immune profiles covering 43 years of influenza A/H3N2 virus evolution for 69 individuals monitored for infection over 6 years and for 225 individuals pre- and postvaccination. Upon infection and vaccination, titers increased broadly, including previously encountered viruses far beyond the extent of cross-reactivity observed after a primary infection. We explored implications for vaccination and found that the use of an antigenically advanced virus had the dual benefit of inducing antibodies against both advanced and previous antigenic clusters. These results indicate that preemptive vaccine updates may improve influenza vaccine efficacy in previously exposed individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M Fonville
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| | - S H Wilks
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - S L James
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - A Fox
- Oxford University Clinical Research Unit and Wellcome Trust Major Overseas Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam
| | - M Ventresca
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - M Aban
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, VIDRL at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia
| | - L Xue
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, VIDRL at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia
| | - T C Jones
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - N M H Le
- Oxford University Clinical Research Unit and Wellcome Trust Major Overseas Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam
| | - Q T Pham
- National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam
| | - N D Tran
- National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam
| | - Y Wong
- Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford OX1 3PW, UK
| | - A Mosterin
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - L C Katzelnick
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - D Labonte
- Insect Biomechanics Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - T T Le
- National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam
| | - G van der Net
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| | - E Skepner
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - C A Russell
- WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK
| | - T D Kaplan
- bobblewire.com, Saint Louis, MO 63112, US
| | - G F Rimmelzwaan
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| | - N Masurel
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| | - J C de Jong
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| | - A Palache
- Abbott Laboratories, Weesp 1380 DA, the Netherlands
| | - W E P Beyer
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| | - Q M Le
- National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam
| | - T H Nguyen
- National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam
| | - H F L Wertheim
- Oxford University Clinical Research Unit and Wellcome Trust Major Overseas Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.,Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7BN, UK
| | - A C Hurt
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, VIDRL at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia.,Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia
| | - A D M E Osterhaus
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| | - I G Barr
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, VIDRL at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia
| | - R A M Fouchier
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| | - P W Horby
- Oxford University Clinical Research Unit and Wellcome Trust Major Overseas Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.,Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7BN, UK
| | - D J Smith
- Center for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,WHO Collaborating Center for Modeling, Evolution, and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.,Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Beyer WEP, Nauta JJP, Palache AM, Giezeman KM, Osterhaus ADME. Immunogenicity and safety of inactivated influenza vaccines in primed populations: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Vaccine 2011; 29:5785-92. [PMID: 21624411 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.05.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2010] [Revised: 05/09/2011] [Accepted: 05/13/2011] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
Several inactivated influenza vaccine formulations for systemic administration in man are currently available for annual (seasonal) immunization: split virus and subunit (either plain-aqueous, or virosomal, or adjuvanted by MF59). From a literature search covering the period 1978-2009, 33 articles could be identified, which described randomized clinical trials comparing at least two of the four vaccine formulations with respect to serum hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody response, local and systemic vaccine reactions and serious adverse events after vaccination, and employing seasonal vaccine components and doses. In total, 9121 vaccinees of all ages, either healthy or with underlying diseases, were involved. Most vaccinees were primed or had been vaccinated in previous years. For immunogenicity, homologous post-vaccination geometric mean HI titers (GMTs) were analyzed by a random effects model for continuous data. Unreported standard deviations (SD) were addressed by imputing assumed SD-values. Age and health state of the vaccinees appeared to have little influence on the outcome. The immunogenicity of split, aqueous and virosomal subunit formulations were similar, with geometric mean ratio values (GMR, quotient of paired GMT-values) varying around one (0.93-1.24). The MF59-adjuvanted subunit vaccine induced, on average, larger antibody titers than the non-adjuvanted vaccine formulations, but the absolute increase was small (GMR-values varying between 1.25 and 1.40). Vaccine reactions were analyzed using a random effects model for binary data. Local and systemic reactogenicity was similar among non-adjuvanted formulations. The adjuvanted subunit formulation was more frequently associated with local reactions than the non-adjuvanted formulations (rate ratio: 2.12, significant). Systemic reactions were similar among all vaccine formulations. The original articles emphasized the mild and transient character of the vaccine reactions and the absence of serious vaccine-related adverse events. This adequate amount of evidence led to the conclusion that all the currently available inactivated influenza vaccine formulations are safe, well tolerated and similarly effective to control seasonal influenza outbreaks across primed populations and age ranges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W E P Beyer
- National Influenza Centre and Department of Virology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Beyer WEP, Palache AM, de Jong JC, Osterhaus ADME. Cold-adapted live influenza vaccine versus inactivated vaccine: systemic vaccine reactions, local and systemic antibody response, and vaccine efficacy. A meta-analysis. Vaccine 2002; 20:1340-53. [PMID: 11818152 DOI: 10.1016/s0264-410x(01)00471-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 172] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W E P Beyer
- WHO National Influenza Centre, Institute of Virology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, NL-3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|