Immunization of institutionalized asthmatic children and patients with psychomotor retardation using live attenuated cold-adapted reassortment influenza A H1N1, H3N2 and B vaccines

Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in People With Asthma: A National Test-Negative Design Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Influenza infection is a trigger of asthma attacks. Influenza vaccination can potentially reduce the incidence of influenza in people with asthma, but uptake remains persistently low, partially reflecting concerns about vaccine effectiveness (VE).

METHODS

We conducted a test-negative designed case-control study to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in people with asthma in Scotland over 6 seasons (2010/2011 to 2015/2016). We used individual patient-level data from 223 practices, which yielded 1 830 772 patient-years of data that were linked with virological (n = 5910 swabs) data.

RESULTS

Vaccination was associated with an overall 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.8-62.7) risk reduction of laboratory-confirmed influenza infections in people with asthma over 6 seasons. There were substantial variations in VE between seasons, influenza strains, and age groups. The highest VE (76.1%; 95% CI, 55.6-87.1) was found in the 2010/2011 season, when the A(H1N1) strain dominated and there was a good antigenic vaccine match. High protection was observed against the A(H1N1) (eg, 2010/2011; 70.7%; 95% CI, 32.5-87.3) and B strains (eg, 2010/2011; 83.2%; 95% CI, 44.3-94.9), but there was lower protection for the A(H3N2) strain (eg, 2014/2015; 26.4%; 95% CI, -12.0 to 51.6). The highest VE against all viral strains was observed in adults aged 18-54 years (57.0%; 95% CI, 42.3-68.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccination gave meaningful protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza in people with asthma across all seasons. Strategies to boost influenza vaccine uptake have the potential to substantially reduce influenza-triggered asthma attacks.

Effectiveness and safety of seasonal influenza vaccination in children with underlying respiratory diseases and allergy

Influenza causes acute respiratory infections and various complications. Children in the high-risk group have higher complication and hospitalization rates than high-risk elderly individuals. Influenza prevention in children is important, as they can be a source infection spread in their communities. Influenza vaccination is strongly recommended for high-risk children with chronic underlying circulatory and respiratory disease, immature infants, and children receiving long-term immunosuppressant treatment or aspirin. However, vaccination rates in these children are low because of concerns regarding the exacerbation of underlying diseases and vaccine efficacy. To address these concerns, many clinical studies on children with underlying respiratory diseases have been conducted since the 1970s. Most of these reported no differences in immunogenicity or adverse reactions between healthy children and those with underlying respiratory diseases and no adverse effects of the influenza vaccine on the disease course. Further to these studies, the inactivated split-virus influenza vaccine is recommended for children with underlying respiratory disease, in many countries. However, the live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is not recommended for children younger than 5 years with asthma or recurrent wheezing. Influenza vaccination is contraindicated in patients with severe allergies to egg, chicken, or feathers, because egg-cultivated influenza vaccines may contain ovalbumin. There has been no recent report of serious adverse events after influenza vaccination in children with egg allergy. However, many experts recommend the trivalent influenza vaccine for patients with severe egg allergy, with close observation for 30 minutes after vaccination. LAIV is still not recommended for patients with asthma or egg allergy.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients in many countries as observational studies have shown that influenza infection can be associated with asthma exacerbations. However, influenza vaccination has the potential to cause wheezing and adversely affect pulmonary function. While an overview concluded that there was no clear benefit of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma, this conclusion was not based on a systematic search of the literature.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination in children and adults with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reviewed reference lists of articles. The latest search was carried out in November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of influenza vaccination in children (over two years of age) and adults with asthma. We excluded studies involving people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion criteria and assessment of trial quality were applied by two review authors independently. Data extraction was done by two review authors independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included in the first published version of this review, and nine further trials have been included in four updates. The included studies cover a wide diversity of people, settings and types of influenza vaccination, and we pooled data from the studies that employed similar vaccines. PROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE DURING THE INFLUENZA SEASON: A single parallel-group trial, involving 696 children, was able to assess the protective effects of influenza vaccination. There was no significant reduction in the number, duration or severity of influenza-related asthma exacerbations. There was no difference in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) although children who had been vaccinated had better symptom scores during influenza-positive weeks. Two parallel-group trials in adults did not contribute data to these outcomes due to very low levels of confirmed influenza infection. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING VACCINATION: Two cross-over trials involving 1526 adults and 712 children (over three years old) with asthma compared inactivated trivalent split-virus influenza vaccine with a placebo injection. These trials excluded any clinically important increase in asthma exacerbations in the two weeks following influenza vaccination (risk difference 0.014; 95% confidence interval -0.010 to 0.037). However, there was significant heterogeneity between the findings of two trials involving 1104 adults in terms of asthma exacerbations in the first three days after vaccination with split-virus or surface-antigen inactivated vaccines. There was no significant difference in measures of healthcare utilisation, days off school/symptom-free days, mean lung function or medication usage.EFFECTS OF LIVE ATTENUATED (INTRANASAL) INFLUENZA VACCINATION: There were no significant differences found in exacerbations or measures of lung function following live attenuated cold recombinant vaccine versus placebo in two small studies on 17 adults and 48 children. There were no significant differences in asthma exacerbations found for the comparison live attenuated vaccine (intranasal) versus trivalent inactivated vaccine (intramuscular) in one study on 2229 children (over six years of age).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty remains about the degree of protection that vaccination affords against asthma exacerbations that are related to influenza infection. Evidence from more recently published randomised trials of inactivated split-virus influenza vaccination indicates that there is no significant increase in asthma exacerbations immediately after vaccination in adults or children over three years of age. We were unable to address concerns regarding possible increased wheezing and hospital admissions in infants given live intranasal vaccination.

Intranasal administration of influenza vaccines: current status

AbstractThis review article focuses on intranasal immunisation against influenza,although it also encompasses antigen uptake and processing in the nasopharyngealpassages, host defence from influenza and current influenza vaccination practices.Improvement of current vaccination strategies is clearly required; current proceduresinvolve repeated annual injections that sometimes fail to protect the recipient. It isenvisaged that nonpercutaneous immunisation would be more attractive to potentialvaccinees, thus improving uptake and coverage. As well as satisfying noninvasivecriteria, intranasal influenza immunisation has a number of perceived immunologicaladvantages over current procedures. Perhaps one of the greatest attributes of thisapproach is its potential to evoke the secretion of haemagglutinin-specific IgAantibodies in the upper respiratory tract, the main site of viral infection. Inactivated influenza vaccines have the advantage that they have a long historyof good tolerability as injected immunogens, and in this respect are possibly morelikely to be licensed than attenuated viruses. Inert influenza vaccines are poormucosal immunogens, requiring several administrations, or prior immunologicalpriming, in order to engender significant antibody responses. The use of vaccinedelivery systems or mucosal adjuvants serves to appreciably improve theimmunogenicity of mucosally applied inactivated influenza vaccines. As is the casewhen they are introduced parenterally, inactivated influenza vaccines are relativelypoor stimulators of virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity following nasalinoculation. Live attenuated intranasal influenza vaccines are at a far moreadvanced stage of clinical readiness (phase III versus phase I). With the use of liveattenuated vaccines, it is possible to stimulate mucosal and cell-mediatedimmunological responses of a similar kind to those elicited by natural influenzainfection. In children, recombinant live attenuated cold-adapted influenza viruses arewell tolerated. Moreover, cold-adapted influenza viruses usually stimulate protectiveimmunity following only a single nasal inoculation. Safety of recombinant liveattenuated cold-adapted influenza viruses has also been demonstrated in high riskindividuals with cystic fibrosis, asthma, cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus.They are not suitable for immunising immunocompromised patients, however, andare poorly efficacious in individuals with pre-existing immunity to strains closelyantigenically matched with the recombinant virus. According to the reviewedliterature, it is apparent that intranasal administration of vaccine as an aerosol issuperior to administration as nose drops. The information reviewed in this papersuggests that nasally administered influenza vaccines could make a substantialimpact on the human and economic cost of influenza.

Protective efficacy of live-attenuated influenza vaccine (multivalent, Ann Arbor strain): a literature review addressing interference

Selecting the B strain for inclusion in a trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine has been difficult because two distinct influenza B lineages frequently co-circulate, prompting consideration of a quadrivalent vaccine containing two A and two B strains. Because interference among wild-type influenza viruses is a well-documented phenomenon and viral replication is required to elicit protection by the licensed live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; MedImmune, LLC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA), a potential quadrivalent formulation raises considerations of interference among the LAIV strains contained in the vaccine. We reviewed the available clinical and nonclinical literature to understand the potential impact of viral interference on immunogenicity, efficacy and shedding of LAIV strains. We have found no clinically significant evidence of viral or immune interference affecting efficacy of LAIV strains in multivalent vaccine formulations. Future clinical studies should compare the safety and immune responses of children and adults to licensed trivalent and investigational quadrivalent LAIV formulations.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients in many countries as observational studies have shown that influenza infection can be associated with asthma exacerbations, but influenza vaccination itself has the potential to adversely affect pulmonary function. A recent overview concluded that there was no clear benefit of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma but this conclusion was not based on a systematic search of the literature.

OBJECTIVES

Whilst influenza may cause asthma exacerbations, there is controversy about the use of influenza vaccinations, since they may precipitate an asthma attack in some people. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in children and adults with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and checked reference lists of articles. The last search was carried out in September 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of influenza vaccination in children (over two years of age) and adults with asthma. Studies involving people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion criteria and assessment of trial quality were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were initially included. Four of these trials were of high quality. Six further articles have been included in three updates (Bueving 2003; Castro 2001; Fleming 2006; Redding 2002; Reid 1998). The included studies covered a wide diversity of people, settings and types of influenza vaccination, but data from the more recent studies that used similar vaccines have been pooled.

BENEFITS

Bueving 2003 studied 696 children with asthma and did not demonstrate a significant reduction in influenza related asthma exacerbations (Risk Difference 0.01; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04).

HARMS

The pooled results of two trials involving 2306 people with asthma did not demonstrate a significant increase in asthma exacerbations in the two weeks following influenza vaccination (Risk Difference 0.00; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty remains about the degree of protection vaccination affords against asthma exacerbations that are related to influenza infection. Evidence from recently published trials indicates that there is no significant increase in asthma exacerbations immediately after vaccination (at least with inactivated influenza vaccination). There is concern regarding possible increased wheezing and hospital admissions in infants given live intranasal vaccination.

A single amino acid change in the C-terminal domain of the matrix protein M1 of influenza B virus confers mouse adaptation and virulence

Serial passage of an initially avirulent influenza B virus, B/Memphis/12/97, resulted in the selection of a variant which was lethal in mice. Virulence correlated with improved growth in vivo and prolonged replication. Sequencing of the complete coding regions of the parent and mouse-adapted viruses revealed 8 amino acid differences. Sequencing and characterization of intermediate passages suggested that one change in the C-terminal domain of the M1 protein, an asparagine to a serine at position 221, was responsible for acquisition of virulence and lethality. Site-directed mutagenesis of the M segment of a different virus, B/Yamanashi/166/98, to change this amino acid residue confirmed its importance by conferring improved growth and virulence in mice. This observation suggests a role for the C domain of the M1 protein in growth and virulence in a mammalian host.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients in many countries as observational studies have shown that influenza infection can be associated with asthma exacerbations, but influenza vaccination itself has the potential to adversely affect pulmonary function. A recent overview concluded that there was no clear benefit of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma but this conclusion was not based on a systematic search of the literature.

OBJECTIVES

Whilst influenza may cause asthma exacerbations, there is controversy about the use of influenza vaccinations, since they may precipitate an asthma attack in some people. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in children and adults with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and checked reference lists of articles. The last search was carried out in February 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of influenza vaccination in children (over two years of age) and adults with asthma. Studies involving people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion criteria and assessment of trial quality were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were initially included. Four of these trials were of high quality. Five further articles have been included in two updates (Bueving 2002; Castro 2001; Redding 2002; Reid 1998). The included studies covered a wide diversity of people, settings and types of influenza vaccination, but data from the more recent studies that used similar vaccines have been pooled. The pooled results of two trials involving 2306 people with asthma did not demonstrate a significant increase in asthma exacerbations in the two weeks following influenza vaccination (Risk Difference 0.00; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). A recent study on 696 children with asthma did not demonstrate a significant reduction in influenza related asthma exacerbations (Risk Difference 0.01; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from recently published trials indicates that there is no significant increase in asthma exacerbations immediately after vaccination (at least with inactivated influenza vaccination); however, uncertainty remains about the degree of protection vaccination affords against asthma exacerbations that are related to influenza infection.

An update on the prevention of influenza in children and adolescents

Influenza virus types A and B cause yearly outbreaks of respiratory tract infections in all age groups including children and adolescents. Complications, such as high fever, febrile convulsions, secondary bacterial infections and myositis frequently lead to hospitalisation. Safe and effective split, subunit and virosome vaccines are available from 6 months of age onwards. Most European countries do have guidelines for the use of influenza vaccines and current strategies primarily aim at decreasing the burden of influenza disease in certain, heterogeneously defined high risk groups.

CONCLUSION

unfortunately, compliance of many physicians and patients with immunisation recommendations is rather poor and several barriers to immunisation have been identified. These deserve our specific attention in the future. Recently, neuraminidase inhibitors with curative and preventive efficacy against influenza virus types A and B have become available. They serve as second line weapons for influenza prophylaxis under specific circumstances.

The role of live influenza vaccines in children

Live attenuated cold-adapted influenza vaccines (CAIVs) have been developed over the past two decades by taking advantage of the segmented RNA genome of influenza and creating attenuated reassortants containing contemporary hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) genes. These vaccines have been shown to be easily administered, safe and immunogenic in adults and children. Recent trials of a trivalent live attenuated CAIV (CAIV-T, tradename FluMist, Aviron, Mt. View, CA) in children have demonstrated greater than 85% efficacy against culture positive H3N2 and B influenza illness and complications, such as otitis media. CAIV-T also prevented shedding of H1N1 virus in 83% of vaccinated subjects after a monovalent CAIV challenge. Nasal IgA and serum HA inhibition (HAI) antibody produced by these vaccines have been associated with protection against infection, but protection may exist even in the absence of identifiable antibody response. Work to date documenting phenotypic and genetic stability, low likelihood of reactogenicity, infrequent transmissibility and attenuating properties of reassortants heralds promise for the broad use of this vaccine. Targeting children to receive this vaccine may now prove practical and may serve to reduce overall influenza morbidity, given the significant contribution of the pediatric age group of children to influenza illness burden and community spread. Studies of vaccine use in community settings will aid in determining the public health future of this approach.

Rationale and approach to target children with asthma for annual influenza immunization

Influenza virus infection can cause an acute exacerbation of asthma that may result in hospitalization. Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for children with asthma, but fewer than 10 percent receive it. This review summarizes the influenza-associated morbidity in children with asthma. The risk-versus-benefit of influenza vaccination in children with asthma is evaluated. Strategies to improve influenza vaccine uptake in children with asthma are investigated. Influenza virus infection causes substantial morbidity in children with asthma. Data on safety and effectiveness of the trivalent influenza vaccine in these children are limited. However, it is generally safe and effective in preventing influenza infection. The investigational live-attenuated, cold-adapted, trivalent nasal spray influenza vaccine needs evaluation for safety and efficacy in children with asthma. An annual, well-organized, computerized multicomponent strategy should be implemented for optimizing influenza immunization in the high-risk population. Children with asthma should be targeted for annual influenza immunization.

Safety and tolerability of cold-adapted influenza virus vaccine in children and adolescents with asthma

BACKGROUND

Influenza infections can cause severe respiratory disease in high risk persons such as those with asthma, but immunization rates for high risk groups remain suboptimal. An investigational influenza virus vaccine, trivalent, types A and B, live, cold-adapted (CAIV-T) administered by intranasal spray was shown previously to be effective in healthy adults and healthy children.

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and tolerability of CAIV-T in subjects 9 years of age and older with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

In this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study, spirometry was performed twice before vaccination to establish a baseline forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) and once 2 to 5 days thereafter. The primary outcome index was the percent change in percent predicted FEV1 before and after vaccination. Peak flows, clinical asthma symptom scores and nighttime awakening scores were measured daily from 7 days pre- to 28 days postvaccination.

RESULTS

The primary outcome index (percentage change in percent predicted FEV1) was not different between the two groups (0.2% vs. 0.4% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively; P = 0.78). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the two groups; these included the number of subjects with a decrease in FEV1 > or =15% from baseline, reductions in peak flows > or =15%, > or =30% or > or =2 sd below baseline, use of beta-adrenergic rescue medications, asthma exacerbations and clinical asthma symptom scores before and after vaccination. The same proportion of subjects in each group experienced postvaccination symptoms within 10 days (92% and 91%, respectively; P = 1.0). No serious adverse event occurred.

CONCLUSION

CAIV-T was generally safe and well-tolerated in children and adolescents with moderate to severe asthma.

Respiratory viral infections in the elderly

Viral respiratory infections represent a significant challenge for those interested in improving the health of the elderly. Influenza continues to result in a large burden of excess morbidity and mortality. Two effective measures, inactivated influenza vaccine, and the antiviral drugs rimantadine and amantadine, are currently available for control of this disease. Inactivated vaccine should be given yearly to all of those over the age of 65, as well as younger individuals with high-risk medical conditions and individuals delivering care to such persons. Live, intranasally administered attenuated influenza vaccines are also in development, and may be useful in combination with inactivated vaccine in the elderly. The antiviral drugs amantadine and rimantadine are effective in the treatment and prevention of influenza A, although rimantadine is associated with fewer side-effects. Recently, the inhaled neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir, which is active against both influenza A and B viruses, was licensed for use in uncomplicated influenza. The role of this drug in treatment and prevention of influenza in the elderly remains to be determined. Additional neuraminidase inhibitors are also being developed. In addition, to influenza, respiratory infections with respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus, rhinovirus, and coronavirus have been identified as potential problems in the elderly. With increasing attention, it is probable that the impact of these infections in this age group will be more extensively documented. Understanding of the immunology and pathogenesis of these infections in elderly adults is in its infancy, and considerable additional work will need to be performed towards development of effective control measures.

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.