Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Hospitalizations in Older Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
- 作者列表："Gershon AS","Chung H","Porter J","Campitelli MA","Buchan SA","Schwartz KL","Crowcroft NS","Campigotto A","Gubbay JB","Karnauchow T","Katz K","McGeer AJ","McNally JD","Richardson DC","Richardson SE","Rosella LC","Simor AE","Smieja M","Zahariadis G","Kwong JC
BACKGROUND:Annual influenza immunization is recommended for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by all major COPD clinical practice guidelines. We sought to determine the seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations among older adults with COPD. METHODS:We conducted a test-negative study of influenza VE in community-dwelling older adults with COPD in Ontario, Canada using health administrative data and respiratory specimens collected from patients tested for influenza during the 2010-11 to 2015-16 influenza seasons. Influenza vaccination was ascertained from physician and pharmacist billing claims. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of influenza vaccination in people with, compared to those without, laboratory-confirmed influenza. RESULTS:Receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine was associated with an adjusted 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15%-27%) reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization. Adjustment for potential misclassification of vaccination status increased this to 43% (95% CI, 35%-52%). Vaccine effectiveness was not found to vary by patient- or influenza-related variables. CONCLUSIONS:During the studied influenza seasons, influenza vaccination was at least modestly effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in people with COPD. The imperfect effectiveness emphasizes the need for better influenza vaccines and other preventive strategies.
背景: 所有主要的 COPD 临床实践指南都建议对慢性阻塞性肺疾病 (COPD) 患者进行年度流感预防接种我们试图确定季节性流感疫苗对实验室确诊的 COPD 老年人流感相关住院的有效性 (VE)。 方法: 我们在安大略省社区居住的 COPD 老年人中进行了一项流感 VE 试验阴性研究, 加拿大使用 2010-11 至 2015-16 流感季节期间从接受流感检测的患者收集的卫生行政数据和呼吸道标本。从医生和药剂师账单索赔中确定流感疫苗接种。使用多变量 logistic 回归估计与实验室确诊流感患者相比，流感疫苗接种的调整比值比。 结果: 接种季节性流感疫苗与实验室确诊的流感相关住院治疗减少 22% (95% 置信区间 [CI]，15%-27%) 相关。调整疫苗接种状态的潜在错误分类后，这一比例增加到 43% (95% CI，35%-52%)。未发现疫苗有效性因患者或流感相关变量而异。 结论: 在研究的流感季节，流感疫苗接种在减少 COPD 患者实验室确诊的流感相关住院治疗方面至少有一定效果。不完善的有效性强调需要更好的流感疫苗和其他预防策略。
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.