Acceptability of Intanza® 15 μg intradermal influenza vaccine in Belgium during the 2010-2011 influenza season

Immunogenicity, safety and tolerability of intradermal influenza vaccines

Intradermal influenza vaccination has been studied for more than 80 y. The revived interest in this strategy of vaccination is a result of the innovative technologies in needle design allowing more precise injection and making the device easier to use. Furthermore, clinical trials on these novel devices have demonstrated significant dose sparing effects, improved immunogenicity and very few adverse effects. This review compares intradermal vaccination with various devices with subcutaneous and intramuscular vaccination. We also discussed the role of topical adjuvant before intradermal vaccination.

Fluzone® intra-dermal (Intanza®/Istivac® Intra-dermal): An updated overview

Influenza is a highly contagious respiratory acute viral disease which imposes a very heavy burden both in terms of epidemiology and costs, in the developed countries as well as in the developing ones. It represents a serious public health concern and vaccination constitutes an important tool to reduce or at least mitigate its burden. Despite the existence of a broad armamentarium against influenza and despite all the efforts and recommendations of international organisms to broaden immunization, influenza vaccination coverage is still far from being optimal. This, taken together with logistic and technical difficulties that can result into vaccine shortage, makes intra-dermal (ID) vaccines, such as Fluzone® ID and Intanza®, particularly attractive. ID vaccines are comparable and, in some cases, superior to intra-muscular/sub-cutaneous vaccines in terms of immunogenicity, safety, reactogenicity, tolerability and cross-protection profiles, as well as in terms of patient preference, acceptance and vaccine selection. Further advances, such as Fluzone® ID with alternative B strains and Quadrivalent Fluzone® ID or the possibility of self-administering the vaccines, make influenza ID vaccines even more valuable.

Intradermal vaccination for infants and children

Intradermal (ID) vaccination induces a more potent immune response and requires lower vaccine doses as compared with standard vaccination routes. To deliver ID vaccines effectively and consistently, an ID delivery device has been developed and is commercially available for adults. The clinical application of ID vaccines for infants and children is much anticipated because children receive several vaccines, on multiple occasions, during infancy and childhood. However, experience with ID vaccines is limited and present evidence is sparse and inconsistent. ID delivery devices are not currently available for infants and children, but recent studies have examined skin thickness in this population and reported that it did not differ in proportion to body size in infants, children, and adults. These results are helpful in developing new ID devices and for preparing new vaccines in infants and children.

Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Immunogenicity of Standard-Dose Intramuscular Versus Intradermal Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in HIV-Infected Men Who Have Sex With Men in Bangkok, Thailand

BACKGROUND

Individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are at increased risk for severe influenza, yet immune responses to standard-dose intramuscular (IM) influenza vaccine are suboptimal in this population. Intradermal (ID) delivery of influenza vaccine might improve immune response through enhanced stimulation of dendritic cells.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial to compare the immunogenicity of off-label standard-dose (15 µg) ID vs standard-dose (15 µg) IM inactive influenza vaccine in HIV-infected men in Bangkok, Thailand. The primary study outcome was seroconversion (minimum titer of 1:40 and ≥4-fold rise in antibody titer) at 1 month postvaccination based on serum hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers against each vaccine strain. Adverse events (AEs) in the 7 days following vaccination were also assessed.

RESULTS

We enrolled 400 HIV-infected participants; 200 were randomly assigned to receive IM and 200 ID vaccine. Vaccine arms were well-balanced with respect to age, CD4 cell count, HIV RNA load, and antiretroviral treatment. Percentage of seroconversion to all (ID 14% vs IM 15%; P = .8) or at least 1 (ID 69% vs IM 68%; P = .7) of the 3 vaccine strains did not differ significantly between ID vs IM vaccine recipients. A higher proportion of participants who received ID vaccine had mild injection-site AEs compared with participants who received IM vaccine (77% vs 27%).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in the immunogenicity of standard-dose ID vs IM influenza vaccine in this HIV-infected population in Thailand. Additional strategies to enhance immune responses to influenza vaccine among HIV-infected persons are needed.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT01538940.

Acceptance of intradermal inactivated influenza vaccines among hospital staff following 2 seasonal vaccination campaigns

After a Canadian hospital's official influenza vaccination campaign concluded in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 influenza seasons, study nurses provided additional vaccination mobile cart hours and the added choice of an intradermal injection. An additional 2.1% of staff in the first and 1.4% in the second season were vaccinated during the study with 90-99% preferring the intradermal injection or having no preference. All 13 staff who attempted self-injection with the intradermal vaccine in 2012-2013 were successful on their first attempt. Offering alternatives to intramuscular vaccines may increase rates of vaccination.

Safety and tolerability of intradermal influenza vaccination in patients with cardiovascular disease

Background

It is well-established that influenza vaccination reduces adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD), however, the vaccine coverage rate in most countries remains low. The concern about the local adverse effects of intramuscular injection, particularly in CVD patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, is one of the important impediments. This study was conducted to assess the safety, side effects and tolerability of intradermal influenza vaccine in CVD patients.

Methods

This was an observational study in adult CVD patients who had undergone vaccination against seasonal influenza by intradermal vaccination between May 16^th and May 30^th, 2012 at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital. The medical history, patients' acceptability and adverse effects were collected using a written questionnaire completed by the patient immediately following vaccination and by a telephone survey eight days later.

Results

Among 169 patients, 52.1% were women and the mean age was 63 ± 12 years. Coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease and dilated cardiomyopathy were present in 121 (71.6%), 40 (23.7%) and 8 (4.7%), respectively. Antithrombotics were used in 89.3%. After vaccination, the pain score was 0, 1 or 2 (out of 10) in 44.4%, 15.1%, and 27.6% of the patients, respectively. Eight days after vaccination, the common adverse reactions were itching 19 (11.9%), swelling 9 (5.7%) and fatigue (4.7%). No hematoma or bruising was reported.

Conclusions

The intradermal influenza vaccination is safe and well tolerates with high rates of satisfaction in CVD patients. This technique should be useful in expanding influenza vaccine coverage.

Immunogenicity and safety of intradermal trivalent influenza vaccination in nursing home older adults: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the immunogenicity and safety between full-dose (15 μg) intramuscular (i.m.) and full-dose (15 μg) intradermal (i.d.) immunization of the trivalent influenza vaccine in nursing home older adults.

DESIGN

A single-center, randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel group trial from October 2013 to April 2014.

SETTING

Nine nursing homes in Hong Kong.

PARTICIPANTS

Hundred nursing home older adults (mean age: 82.9 ± 7.4 years).

INTERVENTION

Fifty received i.d. (Intanza) and 50 received i.m. (Vaxigrip) vaccination.

MEASUREMENTS

Baseline measurements included demographics, comorbidity, frailty and nutritional status. Day 21 and day 180 immunogenicity (seroconversion rate, seroprotection rate, geometric mean titer [GMT] fold increase in antibody titer) using hemagglutination-inhibition and adverse events were measured. Noninferiority and superiority of i.d. compared with i.m. vaccination in immunogenicity were analyzed. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier: NCT 01967368.

RESULTS

At day 21, noninferiority in immunogenicity of the i.d. vaccination was demonstrated. The seroconversion rate of the H1N1 strain was significantly higher in the i.d. group. At day 180, immunogenicity of both groups fell but the GMT of all strains in i.d. group was higher and the difference was significant for H3N2 strain. The seroconversion rate and GMT fold increase of H3N2 strain was significantly higher in the i.d. group. Local adverse events was significantly more in i.d. group, but they were mild and resolved in 72 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

I.d. vaccination is noninferior, and even superior in some parts of immunogenicity assessment, to i.m. vaccination without compromising safety in nursing home older adults. I.d. vaccination is a good alternative to i.m. vaccination in this population.

Traditional and new influenza vaccines

The challenges in successful vaccination against influenza using conventional approaches lie in their variable efficacy in different age populations, the antigenic variability of the circulating virus, and the production and manufacturing limitations to ensure safe, timely, and adequate supply of vaccine. The conventional influenza vaccine platform is based on stimulating immunity against the major neutralizing antibody target, hemagglutinin (HA), by virus attenuation or inactivation. Improvements to this conventional system have focused primarily on improving production and immunogenicity. Cell culture, reverse genetics, and baculovirus expression technology allow for safe and scalable production, while adjuvants, dose variation, and alternate routes of delivery aim to improve vaccine immunogenicity. Fundamentally different approaches that are currently under development hope to signal new generations of influenza vaccines. Such approaches target nonvariable regions of antigenic proteins, with the idea of stimulating cross-protective antibodies and thus creating a "universal" influenza vaccine. While such approaches have obvious benefits, there are many hurdles yet to clear. Here, we discuss the process and challenges of the current influenza vaccine platform as well as new approaches that are being investigated based on the same antigenic target and newer technologies based on different antigenic targets.

Development of a universal CTL-based vaccine for influenza

In pursuit of better influenza vaccines, many strategies are being studied worldwide. An attractive alternative is the generation of a broadly cross-reactive vaccine based on the induction of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTL) directed against conserved internal antigens of influenza A virus. The feasibility of this approach using recombinant viral vectors has recently been demonstrated in mice and humans by several research groups. However, similar results might also be achieved through immunization with viral proteins expressed in a prokaryotic system formulated with the appropriate adjuvants and delivery systems. This approach would be much simpler and less expensive. Recent results from several laboratories seem to confirm this is as a valid option to be considered.