Attenuated influenza virus vaccines

The evolving history of influenza viruses and influenza vaccines

The isolation of influenza virus 80 years ago in 1933 very quickly led to the development of the first generation of live-attenuated vaccines. The first inactivated influenza vaccine was monovalent (influenza A). In 1942, a bivalent vaccine was produced after the discovery of influenza B. It was later discovered that influenza viruses mutated leading to antigenic changes. Since 1973, the WHO has issued annual recommendations for the composition of the influenza vaccine based on results from surveillance systems that identify currently circulating strains. In 1978, the first trivalent vaccine included two influenza A strains and one influenza B strain. Currently, there are two influenza B lineages circulating; in the latest WHO recommendations, it is suggested that a second B strain could be added to give a quadrivalent vaccine. The history of influenza vaccine and the associated technology shows how the vaccine has evolved to match the evolution of influenza viruses.

Effective nasal influenza vaccine delivery using chitosan

Nasal influenza vaccination may prove to be a good alternative to parenteral injection because of the enhancement of the mucosal immune response and the ease of vaccine administration. This study investigated the use of chitosan, a bioadhesive polymer, as a nasal delivery system with inactivated, subunit influenza vaccine. Subjects received nasally 15 or 7.5 microg of the standard inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine with chitosan or 15 microg of the same vaccine intramuscularly. Serum haemagglutination inhibition (HI) titres for all three vaccine components were measured prior to, and at time points up to 14 weeks after dosing. Serum HI titres following intranasal vaccination with the nasal chitosan-influenza vaccine met the criteria set by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products in terms of seroprotection rate, seroconversion rate and mean fold increase of HI titre for at least one of the three antigens in the vaccination schedules used. These data show that nasal immunisation with chitosan plus trivalent inactivated influenza is a potentially effective, easily-administered form of vaccination.

A protective immune response in mice to viral components other than hemagglutinin in a live influenza A virus vaccine model

Previously, we generated influenza A viruses that possess chimeric type (A/B) hemagglutinins (HA), in which immunogenic regions of type A HA were replaced with those of type B HA, and showed that these viruses were attenuated in mice (J. Virol. 77 (2003) 8031). Here, we intranasally immunized mice with these viruses and then challenged them with a wild-type A virus to assess a protective immune response to viral components other than HA in the form of a live virus. All immunized mice survived challenge with a lethal dose of wild-type virus; none or a limited amount of virus, if any, was recovered from nasal turbinates or lungs of the mice 3 days post-challenge. These results provide direct evidence that immune responses to viral components other than HA confer protection against influenza A virus infection in a mouse model, suggesting the usefulness of live vaccines for viruses that have undergone antigenic drift with respect to HA, or for viruses with heterosubtypic HAs.

Influenza A viruses possessing type B hemagglutinin and neuraminidase: potential as vaccine components

A licensed live attenuated influenza vaccine is available as a trivalent mixture of types A (H1N1 and H3N2) and B vaccine viruses. Thus, interference among these viruses could restrict their replication, affecting vaccine efficacy. One approach to overcoming this potential problem is to use a chimeric virus possessing type B hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) in a type A vaccine virus background. We previously generated a type A virus possessing a chimeric HA in which the entire ectodomain of the type A HA molecule was replaced with that of the type B HA, and showed that this virus protected mice from challenge by a wild-type B virus. In the study described here, we generated type A/B chimeric viruses carrying not only the chimeric (A/B) HA, but also the full-length type B NA instead of the type A NA, resulting in (A/B) HA/NA chimeric viruses possessing type B HA and NA ectodomains in the background of a type A virus. These (A/B) HA/NA chimeric viruses were attenuated in both cell culture and mice as compared with the wild-type A virus. Our findings may allow an effective live influenza vaccine to be produced from a single master strain, providing a model for the design of future live influenza vaccines.

Cold-adapted live influenza vaccine versus inactivated vaccine: systemic vaccine reactions, local and systemic antibody response, and vaccine efficacy. A meta-analysis

Since the 1940s, influenza vaccines are inactivated and purified virus or virus subunit preparations (IIV) administered by the intramuscular route. Since decades, attempts have been made to construct, as an alternative, attenuated live influenza vaccines (LIV) for intranasal administration. Presently, the most successful LIV is derived from the cold-adapted master strains A/Ann Arbor/6/60 (H2N2) and B/Ann Arbor/1/66 (AA-LIV, for Ann-Arbor-derived live influenza vaccine). It has been claimed that AA-LIV is more efficacious than IIV. In order to assess differences between the two vaccines with respect to systemic reactogenicity, antibody response, and efficacy, we performed a meta-analysis on eighteen randomised comparative clinical trials involving a total of 5000 vaccinees of all ages. Pooled odds ratios (AA-LIV versus IIV) were calculated according to the random effects model. The two vaccines were associated with similarly low frequencies of systemic vaccine reactions (pooled odds ratio: 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.24). AA-LIV induced significantly lower levels of serum haemagglutination inhibiting antibody and significantly greater levels of local IgA antibody (influenza virus-specific respiratory IgA assayed by ELISA in nasal wash specimens) than IIV. Yet, although they predominantly stimulate different antibody compartments, the two vaccines were similarly efficacious in preventing culture-positive influenza illness. In all trials assessing clinical efficacy, the odds ratios were not significantly different from one (point of equivalence). The pooled odds ratio for influenza A-H3N2 was 1.50 (95% CI: 0.80-2.82), and for A-H1N1, 1.03 (95% CI: 0.58-1.82). The choice between the two vaccine types should be based on weighing the advantage of the attractive non-invasive mode of administration of AA-LIV, against serious concerns about the biological risks inherent to large-scale use of infectious influenza virus, in particular the hazard of gene reassortment with non-human influenza virus strains.

Active immunization in the United States: developments over the past decade

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified immunization as the most important public health advance of the 20th century. The purpose of this article is to review the changes that have taken place in active immunization in the United States over the past decade. Since 1990, new vaccines have become available to prevent five infectious diseases: varicella, rotavirus, hepatitis A, Lyme disease, and Japanese encephalitis virus infection. Improved vaccines have been developed to prevent Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcus, pertussis, rabies, and typhoid infections. Immunization strategies for the prevention of hepatitis B, measles, meningococcal infections, and poliomyelitis have changed as a result of the changing epidemiology of these diseases. Combination vaccines are being developed to facilitate the delivery of multiple antigens, and improved vaccines are under development for cholera, influenza, and meningococcal disease. Major advances in molecular biology have enabled scientists to devise new approaches to the development of vaccines against diseases ranging from respiratory viral to enteric bacterial infections that continue to plague the world's population.

Live attenuated vaccines against influenza; an historical review

Live attenuated vaccines administered directly to the respiratory tract offer the promise of providing more effective immunity against influenza than subunit or split inactivated vaccines. Evidence has accumulated in recent years that immunological responses relevant to both the prevention of and recovery from influenza are best induced by natural infection. The ease with which the genes of influenza viruses reassort when two or more viruses infect a single cell has been exploited as a means of rapidly producing attenuated vaccines. Donor strains that have been shown by extensive testing to be fully attenuated are used to co-infect cells with contemporary epidemic strains to produce reassortants with the required degree of avirulence and the surface antigens of the epidemic strain. Reassortants prepared from cold-adapted mutants of both influenza A and B viruses have been widely shown from clinical trials in both the United States and Russia over many years to be well tolerated in both adults and children and to be highly efficacious.

Influenza vaccines: present and future

Immunization is the most feasible method for preventing influenza. Vaccination against influenza is recommended for everyone 65 years of age and older and for persons less than 65 years of age who are at risk for developing complications of influenza. Immune correlates of protection have been established, and a global network is in place to monitor the appearance and circulation of antigenic variants of influenza viruses, as well as the appearance of novel subtypes of influenza A. Antigenic and genetic analyses of circulating viruses and testing of serum from vaccine recipients guide vaccine composition updates. The efficacy of influenza vaccines depends in part on the closeness of the antigenic match between the vaccine strain and the epidemic strain. Currently licensed influenza vaccines are trivalent, formalin-inactivated, egg-derived vaccines; their efficacy ranges from 70 to 90% in young, healthy populations when there is a close antigenic match between vaccine strains and epidemic strains. Development of intranasally administered alternative vaccines and improvement of the existing vaccine are areas of active research. A trivalent, ca live vaccine is the most promising LAIV candidate. In a field trial, efficacy rates of LAIV in young children were 96% against influenza A (H3N2) and 91% against influenza B. However, few data are available to compare this formulation of the trivalent ca live vaccine with the trivalent, inactivated vaccine. Influenza vaccine recommendations will most likely be revised on licensure of LAIV; each vaccine may offer distinct advantages in specific populations.

Intranasal immunization with inactivated influenza vaccine

The development of improved vaccines against epidemic and pandemic influenza virus infection remains a priority in vaccine research. Killed vaccines given by injection are both cost-effective and induce immunity; however, their limitations are well known. Live vaccines have been in development for many years, but difficulties and safety concerns have prohibited their licensing in Western countries. However, the newer technologies of vaccine development, including DNA vaccines and attenuated virus vaccines produced by reverse genetics, remain a hope for the future. With these problems in mind, emphasis has been given to the development of inactivated vaccines that are administered intranasally, either as repeated doses of saline vaccine or in conjunction with suitable carriers or adjuvants. This review describes these latter developments and concludes that this approach offers advantages and should be vigorously researched.