A Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Elicits Enhanced Heterologous Protection When the Internal Genes of the Vaccine Are Matched to Those of the Challenge Virus.
- 作者列表："Smith A","Rodriguez L","El Ghouayel M","Nogales A","Chamberlain JM","Sortino K","Reilly E","Feng C","Topham DJ","Martínez-Sobrido L","Dewhurst S
:Influenza A virus (IAV) causes significant morbidity and mortality, despite the availability of viral vaccines. The efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) has been especially poor in recent years. One potential reason is that the master donor virus (MDV), on which all LAIVs are based, contains either the internal genes of the 1960 A/Ann Arbor/6/60 or the 1957 A/Leningrad/17/57 H2N2 viruses (i.e., they diverge considerably from currently circulating strains). We previously showed that introduction of the temperature-sensitive (ts) residue signature of the AA/60 MDV into a 2009 pandemic A/California/04/09 H1N1 virus (Cal/09) results in only 10-fold in vivo attenuation in mice. We have previously shown that the ts residue signature of the Russian A/Leningrad/17/57 H2N2 LAIV (Len LAIV) more robustly attenuates the prototypical A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (PR8) H1N1 virus. In this work, we therefore introduced the ts signature from Len LAIV into Cal/09. This new Cal/09 LAIV is ts in vitro, highly attenuated (att) in mice, and protects from a lethal homologous challenge. In addition, when our Cal/09 LAIV with PR8 hemagglutinin and neuraminidase was used to vaccinate mice, it provided enhanced protection against a wild-type Cal/09 challenge relative to a PR8 LAIV with the same attenuating mutations. These findings suggest it may be possible to improve the efficacy of LAIVs by better matching the sequence of the MDV to currently circulating strains.IMPORTANCE Seasonal influenza infection remains a major cause of disease and death, underscoring the need for improved vaccines. Among current influenza vaccines, the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is unique in its ability to elicit T-cell immunity to the conserved internal proteins of the virus. Despite this, LAIV has shown limited efficacy in recent years. One possible reason is that the conserved, internal genes of all current LAIVs derive from virus strains that were isolated between 1957 and 1960 and that, as a result, do not resemble currently circulating influenza viruses. We have therefore developed and tested a new LAIV, based on a currently circulating pandemic strain of influenza. Our results show that this new LAIV elicits improved protective immunity compared to a more conventional LAIV.
甲型流感病毒 (IAV) 引起显著的发病率和死亡率，尽管病毒疫苗的可用性。近年来，流感减毒活疫苗 (LAIVs) 的疗效尤其不佳。一个潜在的原因是，主供体病毒 (MDV)，所有 laiv 的基础, 包含 1960 A/Ann Arbor/6/60 或 1957 A/列宁格勒/17/57 H2N2 病毒 es (i. e., 它们与目前流行的菌株有很大的差异)。我们之前展示了将 AA/60 MDV 的温度敏感 (ts) 残基标记引入 2009 大流行 a/加利福尼亚/04/09 H1N1 病毒 (Cal/09) 结果小鼠体内衰减仅 10 倍。我们之前已经表明，俄罗斯 A/列宁格勒/17/57 H2N2 LAIV (Len LAIV) 的 ts 残基特征更有力地减弱了原型 A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (PR8) H1N1 病毒。在这项工作中，我们因此将 Len LAIV 的 ts 签名引入 Cal/09。这种新的 Cal/09 LAIV 在体外是 ts，在小鼠中高度衰减 (att)，并保护免受致死性同源攻击。此外，当我们的带有 PR8 血凝素和神经氨酸酶的 Cal/09laiv 用于接种小鼠时, 相对于具有相同衰减突变的 PR8 LAIV，它提供了对野生型 Cal/09 攻击的增强保护。这些发现表明，通过更好地匹配 MDV 的序列与当前循环菌株，可能有可能提高 LAIVs 的疗效。重要性季节性流感感染仍然是疾病和死亡的主要原因，强调需要改进疫苗。在目前的流感疫苗中，流感减毒活疫苗 (LAIV) 在激发 T 细胞对病毒保守内部蛋白免疫的能力方面是独一无二的。尽管如此，LAIV 近年来表现出的疗效有限。一个可能的原因是，目前所有 LAIVs 的保守、内部基因来源于 1960 和 1957年分离的病毒株，结果与目前流行的流感病毒 es 不相似。因此，我们根据目前流行的流感大流行株开发并测试了一种新的 LAIV。我们的结果表明，与更常规的 LAIV 相比，这种新的 LAIV 激发了更好的保护性免疫。
METHODS:BACKGROUND:From 2015/16 through 2017/18, injectable, trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3) and a nasal spray, tetravalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) were used in parallel in Finland. To understand how well vaccination with each vaccine type protected children against influenza under real-life conditions, vaccine effectiveness in two-year-olds was estimated for all three seasons. METHODS:Each season, a nationwide register-based cohort study was conducted. The study population comprised 60,088 children in 2015/16, 60,860 children in 2016/17 and 60,345 children in 2017/18. Laboratory-confirmed influenza was the study outcome. Seasonal influenza vaccination with either LAIV4 or IIV3 was the time-dependent exposure of interest. Vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children. RESULTS:From 2015/16 through 2017/18, the effectiveness of LAIV4 against influenza of any virus type was estimated at 54.2% (95% confidence interval, 32.2%-69.0%), 20.3% (-12.7% to 43.6%) and 30.5% (10.9%-45.9%); the corresponding effectiveness of IIV3 was 77.2% (48.9%-89.8%), 24.5% (-29.8% to 56.1%) and -20.1% (-61.5% to 10.7%). Neither of the influenza vaccines clearly excelled in protecting children. The LAIV4 effectiveness against type B was greater than against type A and greater than the IIV3 effectiveness against type B. CONCLUSIONS:To understand how influenza vaccines could be improved, vaccine effectiveness must be analyzed by vaccine and virus type. Effectiveness estimates expressing also overall protection levels are needed to guide individual and programmatic decision-making processes. Supported by this analysis, the vaccination program in Finland now recommends LAIV4 and injectable, tetravalent inactivated influenza vaccines replacing IIV3.
METHODS::Intranasally administered influenza vaccines could be more effective than injected vaccines, since intranasal vaccination can induce virus-specific IgA antibodies in the upper respiratory tract, which is the initial site of infection. In the current study, immune responses elicited by an intranasal inactivated H5 influenza vaccine were evaluated in healthy H5 influenza virus-naive individuals. Three doses of intranasal inactivated whole-virion H5 influenza vaccine induced strong neutralizing nasal IgA and serum IgG antibodies. In addition, a mucoadhesive excipient, carboxy-vinyl polymer (CVP), had a notable impact on the induction of nasal IgA antibody responses but not serum IgG antibody responses. The nasal hemagglutinin (HA)-specific IgA antibody responses clearly correlated with mucosal neutralizing antibody responses, indicating that measurement of nasal HA-specific IgA titers could be used as a surrogate for the mucosal antibody response. Furthermore, increased numbers of plasma cells and vaccine antigen-specific helper T (Th) cells in the peripheral blood were observed after vaccination, suggesting that peripheral blood biomarkers may also be used to evaluate the intranasal vaccine-induced immune response. However, peripheral blood immune cell responses correlated with neutralizing antibody titers in serum samples but not in nasal wash samples. Thus, analysis of the peripheral blood immune response could be a surrogate for the systemic immune response to intranasal vaccination but not for the mucosal immune response. The current study suggests the clinical potential of intranasal inactivated vaccines against H5 influenza viruses and highlights the need to develop novel means to evaluate intranasal vaccine-induced mucosal immune responses. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
METHODS:BACKGROUND:Influenza is an important public health problem and existing vaccines are not completely protective. New vaccines that protect by alternative mechanisms are needed to improve efficacy of influenza vaccines. In 2015, we did a phase 1 trial of an oral influenza vaccine, VXA-A1.1. A favourable safety profile and robust immunogenicity results in that trial supported progression of the vaccine to the current phase 2 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy of the vaccine in a human influenza challenge model. METHODS:We did a single-site, placebo-controlled and active-controlled, phase 2 study at WCCT Global, Costa Mesa, CA, USA. Eligible individuals had an initial A/California/H1N1 haemagglutination inhibition titre of less than 20 and were aged 18-49 years and in good health. Individuals were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive a single immunisation of either 1011 infectious units of VXA-A1.1 (a monovalent tablet vaccine) orally, a full human dose of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) via intramuscular injection, or matched placebo. Randomisation was done by computer-generated assignments with block size of five. An unmasked pharmacist provided the appropriate vaccines and placebos to the administrating nurse. Individuals receiving the treatments, investigators, and staff were all masked to group assignments. 90 days after immunisation, individuals without clinically significant symptoms or signs of influenza, an oral temperature of higher than 37·9°C, a positive result for respiratory viral shedding on a Biofire test, and any investigator-assessed contraindications were challenged intranasally with 0·5 mL wild-type A/CA/like(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus. The primary outcomes were safety, which was assessed in all immunised participants through 365 days, and influenza-positive illness after viral challenge, which was assessed in individuals that received the viral challenge and the required number of assessments post viral challenge. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02918006. RESULTS:Between Aug 31, 2016, and Jan 23, 2017, 374 individuals were assessed for eligibility, of whom 179 were randomly assigned to receive either VXA-A1.1 (n=71 [one individual did not provide a diary card, thus the solicited events were assessed in 70 individuals]), IIV (n=72), or placebo (n=36). Between Dec 2, 2016, and April 26, 2017, 143 eligible individuals (58 in the VXA-A1.1 group, 54 in the IIV group, and 31 in the placebo group) were challenged with influenza virus. VXA-A1.1 was well tolerated with no serious or medically significant adverse events. The most prevalent solicited adverse events for each of the treatment groups after immunisation were headache in the VXA-A1.1 (in five [7%] of 70 participants) and placebo (in seven [19%] of 36 participants) groups and tenderness at injection site in the IIV group (in 19 [26%] of 72 participants) Influenza-positive illness after challenge was detected in 17 (29%) of 58 individuals in the VXA-A1.1 group, 19 (35%) of 54 in the IIV group, and 15 (48%) of 31 in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION:Orally administered VXA-A1.1 was well tolerated and generated protective immunity against virus shedding, similar to a licensed intramuscular IIV. These results represent a major step forward in developing a safe and effective oral influenza vaccine. FUNDING:Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.