- 作者列表："Castilla J","Portillo ME","Casado I","Pozo F","Navascués A","Adelantado M","Gómez Ibáñez C","Ezpeleta C","Martínez-Baz I","Primary Health Care Sentinel Network and Network for Influenza Surveillance in Hospitals of Navarre.
BACKGROUND:The population targeted for influenza vaccination can be repeatedly vaccinated over successive seasons, and vaccines received in previous seasons may retain preventive effect. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines received in the current and prior seasons in the 2018-2019 season. METHODS:Influenza-like illness patients attended by sentinel general practitioners or admitted to hospitals in Navarre, Spain, were tested for influenza. Vaccination status in the current and three prior seasons was obtained from the vaccination registry. The test-negative design was used to estimate the vaccine effectiveness. RESULTS:A total of 381 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 cases, 341 A(H3N2) cases and 1222 controls were analysed. As compared to individuals unvaccinated in the current and three prior seasons, the influenza vaccine effectiveness against A(H1N1)pdm09 was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 40%, 70%) for current season vaccination regardless of prior doses and 48% (95%CI: 14%, 68%) for vaccination in prior seasons but not in the current season. These estimates were 12% (95%CI: -23%, 37%) and 27% (95%CI: -22%, 56%), respectively, against influenza A(H3N2). Individuals vaccinated with the two A(H1N1)pdm09 strains in influenza vaccines since 2009, A/Michigan/45/2015 and A/California/07/2009, had higher protection (68%; 95%CI: 53%, 77%) than those vaccinated with A/Michigan/45/2015 only (29%, p = 0.020) or with A/California/07/2009 only (34%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION:These results suggest moderate effectiveness of influenza vaccination against A(H1N1)pdm09 and low effectiveness against A(H3N2) influenza in the 2018-2019 season. Vaccination in prior seasons maintained a notable protective effect. Strains included in previous vaccines were as effective as the current vaccine strain, and both added their effects against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.
背景: 针对流感疫苗接种的人群可以在连续季节重复接种，以前季节接种的疫苗可能保留预防效果。本研究旨在估计 2018-2019 季节当前和以前季节接种的灭活流感疫苗的有效性。 方法: 对西班牙纳瓦拉由哨点全科医生参加或入院的流感样疾病患者进行流感检测。从疫苗接种登记处获得当前和前三个季节的疫苗接种状态。试验阴性设计用于评估疫苗有效性。 结果: 共分析 381 例甲型 H1N1 流感 pdm09 病例、 341 例 A (H3N2) 病例和 1222 例对照。与当前和前三个季节未接种的个体相比，针对甲型 H1N1 pdm09 的流感疫苗有效性为 57% (95% 置信区间 [CI]: 40%，70%) 对于当前季节的疫苗接种，无论之前的剂量如何，以及 48% (95% CI: 14%，68%) 对于之前季节的疫苗接种，但不是在当前季节。与甲型流感 (H3N2) 相比，这些估计值分别为 12% (95% CI:-23%，37%) 和 27% (95% CI:-22%，56%)。2009年，A/Michigan/45/2015 和 A/California/07/2009 流感疫苗中接种了两种 A (H1N1) pdm09 菌株的个体具有更高的保护 (68%; 95% CI: 53%, 77%) 比仅接种 A/Michigan/45/2015 (29%，p = 0.020) 或仅接种 A/California/07/2009 (34%，p = 0.005)。 结论: 这些结果表明，在 2018-2019 季节，流感疫苗接种对甲型 H1N1 pdm09 的有效性中等，对甲型 H3N2 流感的有效性较低。前季节接种疫苗保持显著的保护作用。以前疫苗中包括的菌株与目前的疫苗株一样有效，并且两者都增加了它们对甲型 H1N1 流感 pdm09 的影响。
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.