Enhanced Passive Safety Surveillance (EPSS) confirms an optimal safety profile of the use of MF59® -adjuvanted influenza vaccine in older adults: Results from three consecutive seasons.
增强的被动安全监测 (EPSS) 证实了 MF59 使用的最佳安全性®-老年人接种佐剂流感疫苗: 连续三个季节的结果。
- 作者列表："Panatto D","Haag M","Lai PL","Tomczyk S","Amicizia D","Lino MM
BACKGROUND:In Europe, the enhanced safety surveillance (ESS) of seasonal influenza vaccines is mandatory, in order to detect any potential increase in reactogenicity when the vaccine composition is updated. The MF59® -adjuvanted influenza vaccine (Fluad™) is the first and the only licensed adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine in Europe. OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to summarize the safety data of Fluad™ over three consecutive seasons. METHODS:A passive approach to ESS (EPSS) was adopted, in which reporting of spontaneous adverse events (AEs) by vaccinees and vaccine exposure was estimated, in order to generate a near real-time reporting rate. EPSS was conducted in Italy during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 influenza seasons in the primary care setting. All AEs reported within 7 days following immunization were analyzed by season, type and seriousness. Fisher's exact test was used to compare frequencies between seasons. RESULTS:Total exposure accounted for approximately 1,000 doses of Fluad™ for each season. A total of 0.5% (2015), 0.7% (2016), and 0.5% (2017) individual case safety reports (ICSRs) were received, corresponding to a total of 9 (2015), 18 (2016), and 12 (2017) spontaneous AEs. The frequencies of AEs of interest were below those expected on the basis of the known safety profile of the vaccine. Most AEs were mild-to-moderate in severity. No between-season difference was found. CONCLUSIONS:Our analyses confirmed that the safety data observed were consistent with the known safety profile of Fluad™, which has been amply established over the last 20 years. No significant changes in the safety profile were observed.
背景: 在欧洲，季节性流感疫苗的增强安全性监测 (ESS) 是强制性的，以便在疫苗组合物更新时检测任何潜在的反应原性增加。MF59®-佐剂流感疫苗 (Fluad™) 是欧洲首个也是唯一获得许可的佐剂季节性流感疫苗。 目的: 我们的目标是总结连续三个季度的Fluad™的安全数据。 方法: 采用 ESS 的被动方法 (EPSS)，其中估计接种者和疫苗暴露的自发不良事件 (AEs) 报告, 为了生成一个接近实时的报告率。EPSS 在 2015 、 2016 和 2017 流感季节在初级保健机构在意大利进行。按季节、类型和严重性分析免疫后 7 天内报告的所有 ae。使用 Fisher 精确检验比较季节之间的频率。 结果: 总暴露约占 1,000 剂氟™每个季节。共收到 0.5% 份 (2015) 、 0.7% 份 (2016) 、 0.5% 份 (2017) 个案安全性报告 (ICSRs)，对应共收到 9 份 (2015) 、 18 (2016) 和 12 (2017) 自发 AEs。感兴趣的 ae 频率低于根据已知的疫苗安全性特征预期的频率。大多数 ae 的严重程度为轻度至中度。未发现季节间差异。 结论: 我们的分析证实观察到的安全性数据与已知的 Fluad ™的安全性特征一致，该特性在过去的 20 年里已经大量建立。未观察到安全性方面的显著变化。
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.