Future epidemiological and economic impacts of universal influenza vaccines

The efficacy of influenza vaccines, currently at 44%, is limited by the rapid antigenic evolution of the virus and a manufacturing process that can lead to vaccine mismatch. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) recently identified the development of a universal influenza vaccine with an efficacy of at least 75% as a high scientific priority. The US Congress approved $130 million funding for the 2019 fiscal year to support the development of a universal vaccine, and another $1 billion over 5 y has been proposed in the Flu Vaccine Act. Using a model of influenza transmission, we evaluated the population-level impacts of universal influenza vaccines distributed according to empirical age-specific coverage at multiple scales in the United States. We estimate that replacing just 10% of typical seasonal vaccines with 75% efficacious universal vaccines would avert ∼5.3 million cases, 81,000 hospitalizations, and 6,300 influenza-related deaths per year. This would prevent over $1.1 billion in direct health care costs compared to a typical season, based on average data from the 2010-11 to 2018-19 seasons. A complete replacement of seasonal vaccines with universal vaccines is projected to prevent 17 million cases, 251,000 hospitalizations, 19,500 deaths, and $3.5 billion in direct health care costs. States with high per-hospitalization medical expenses along with a large proportion of elderly residents are expected to receive the maximum economic benefit. Replacing even a fraction of seasonal vaccines with universal vaccines justifies the substantial cost of vaccine development.

Influenza vaccination and the 'diversity paradox'

The antigenic evolution of influenza is widely assumed to occur by antigenic drift, in which strains incrementally acquire mutations in highly variable epitopes under strong immune selective pressure, such as those in the major influenza antigen haemagglutinin. However, this is not easy to reconcile with epidemiological observations, which show that each influenza season is dominated by a limited number of strains. Here, we discuss this paradox in light of recent influenza epidemics that have been characterised by low vaccine effectiveness and dominated by strains of limited antigenic and genetic diversity.

Efforts to Improve the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine

Influenza viruses infect approximately 20% of the global population annually, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. While there are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved antiviral drugs for combating the disease, vaccination remains the best strategy for preventing infection. Due to the rapid mutation rate of influenza viruses, vaccine formulations need to be updated every year to provide adequate protection. In recent years, a great amount of effort has been focused on the development of a universal vaccine capable of eliciting broadly protective immunity. While universal influenza vaccines clearly have the best potential to provide long-lasting protection against influenza viruses, the timeline for their development, as well as the true universality of protection they afford, remains uncertain. In an attempt to reduce influenza disease burden while universal vaccines are developed and tested, many groups are working on a variety of strategies to improve the efficacy of the standard seasonal vaccine. This review will highlight the different techniques and technologies that have been, or are being, developed to improve the seasonal vaccination efforts against influenza viruses.

A review of the changes to the licensing of influenza vaccines in Europe

In 2014, the European Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) published a draft regulatory guideline for the evaluation of influenza vaccines. Following a public consultation round, the final guidance will be published in the near future. Here, we highlight the main changes in the clinical section in this guideline and discuss the background to these changes and whether the new consolidated guidance document can be expected to achieve a better understanding of the performance of seasonal, zoonotic and pandemic influenza vaccines during the regulatory licensing process. The new influenza guideline reflects a changed approach to the regulatory assessment of influenza vaccines, resulting in the abolition of serological criteria, known as the CHMP criteria, which have been the mainstay for evaluating the influenza vaccine immunogenicity for several decades. The new guideline adopts a more diversified approach to the measurement and reporting of the immune response to influenza vaccines and sets a requirement to conduct clinical outcome trials in young children. Importantly, more emphasis is placed on the post‐licensure monitoring of the benefit risk of influenza vaccines, including a request for continuous monitoring of efficacy and enhanced safety surveillance. Despite the improvements these new requirements will expectedly bring to the regulatory assessment of influenza vaccines, major challenges remain which cannot be overcome by new guidance alone. Ongoing initiatives in which academia, manufacturers, public health institutes and regulators work together to address these challenges are central to the development of robust tools to evaluate and monitor performance of influenza vaccines in the future.

Influenza vaccination in children primed with MF59-adjuvanted or non-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine

Routine annual influenza immunization is increasingly recommended in young children. We compared the safety and immunogenicity of vaccination with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) versus MF59-adjuvanted TIV (aTIV) in children who received 2 half or full doses of aTIV or TIV, or non-influenza control vaccine, in an efficacy trial conducted 2 years earlier. 197 healthy children aged 30-96 months were randomized to receive vaccination with aTIV or TIV in 2010. To evaluate responses to the first follow-up seasonal vaccination after priming we excluded children who received influenza vaccine(s) in the 2009 pandemic year leaving 40 children vaccinated with aTIV, 26 children with TIV and 10 children with aTIV after a control vaccine in the parent study. Hemagglutination inhibiting antibodies were assayed on Days 1, 22 and 181. aTIV vaccination produced 6.9 to 8.0-fold higher antibody responses than the reference TIV-TIV regimen against A/H3N2 and B strains, which remained higher 6 months following vaccination. The response to the B/Victoria lineage antigen in the second year's vaccine (the first vaccine contained a B/Yamagata lineage antigen) demonstrated that aTIV primed for an adequate response after a single dose on Day 22 (GMTs 160, 95 to antigens in the 2 lineages, respectively), whereas TIV did not (GMTs 38, 20). Vaccination with aTIV produced slightly higher but acceptable local and systemic reactogenicity compared to TIV-TIV and TIV-aTIV mixed regimens. Within the limitations of a small study, the strong immune responses support the use of aTIV for vaccination in young children.