Spread of Antigenically Drifted Influenza A(H3N2) Viruses and Vaccine Effectiveness in the United States During the 2018-2019 Season.
2018-2019 季节美国抗原性漂移甲型流感 (H3N2) 病毒的传播和疫苗有效性。
- 作者列表："Flannery B","Kondor RJG","Chung JR","Gaglani M","Reis M","Zimmerman RK","Nowalk MP","Jackson ML","Jackson LA","Monto AS","Martin ET","Belongia EA","McLean HQ","Kim SS","Blanton L","Kniss K","Budd AP","Brammer L","Stark TJ","Barnes JR","Wentworth DE","Fry AM","Patel M
BACKGROUND:Increased illness due to antigenically drifted A(H3N2) clade 3C.3a influenza viruses prompted concerns about vaccine effectiveness (VE) and vaccine strain selection. We used US virologic surveillance and US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (Flu VE) Network data to evaluate consequences of this clade. METHODS:Distribution of influenza viruses was described using virologic surveillance data. The Flu VE Network enrolled ambulatory care patients aged ≥6 months with acute respiratory illness at 5 sites. Respiratory specimens were tested for influenza by means of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and were sequenced. Using a test-negative design, we estimated VE, comparing the odds of influenza among vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants. RESULTS:During the 2018-2019 influenza season, A(H3N2) clade 3C.3a viruses caused an increasing proportion of influenza cases. Among 2763 Flu VE Network case patients, 1325 (48%) were infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 and 1350 (49%) with A(H3N2); clade 3C.3a accounted for 977 (93%) of 1054 sequenced A(H3N2) viruses. VE was 44% (95% confidence interval, 37%-51%) against A(H1N1)pdm09 and 9% (-4% to 20%) against A(H3N2); VE was 5% (-10% to 19%) against A(H3N2) clade 3C.3a viruses. CONCLUSIONS:The predominance of A(H3N2) clade 3C.3a viruses during the latter part of the 2018-2019 season was associated with decreased VE, supporting the A(H3N2) vaccine component update for 2019-2020 northern hemisphere influenza vaccines.
背景: 抗原漂移 A (H3N2) 分支 3 C.3a 流感病毒导致的疾病增加引发了对疫苗有效性 (VE) 和疫苗株选择的担忧。我们使用美国病毒学监测和美国流感疫苗有效性 (Flu VE) 网络数据来评估这一分支的后果。 方法: 使用病毒学监测数据描述流感病毒的分布。Flu VE 网络在 5 个地点登记了年龄 ≥ 6 个月的急性呼吸系统疾病门诊患者。呼吸道标本用逆转录聚合酶链反应检测流感，并测序。使用测试阴性设计，我们估计了 VE，比较了接种疫苗与未接种疫苗参与者中流感的几率。 结果: 在 2018-2019 流感季节，A (H3N2) 分支 3 C.3a 病毒引起的流感病例比例增加。2763 例流感 VE 网络病例患者中，甲型 (H1N1) pdm09 感染 1325 例 (48%)，甲型 (H3N2) 感染 1350 例 (49%); clade 3 C.3a 占 977 (93%) 1054 个测序的 A (H3N2) 病毒。VE 对 A (H1N1) pdm09 为 44% (95% 置信区间，37%-51%)，对 A (H3N2) 为 9% (-4% ~ 20%); VE 对 A (H3N2) 分支 3 C.3a 病毒的检出率为 5% (-10% ~ 19%)。 结论: A (H3N2) 分支 3 C.3a 病毒在 2018-2019 季节后期的优势与 VE 减少相关，支持 A (H3N2) 2019-2020 北半球流感疫苗的疫苗成分更新。
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.