Assessment of temporally-related acute respiratory illness following influenza vaccination

Specific and Nonspecific Effects of Influenza Vaccines

With the introduction of the influenza vaccine in the official immunization schedule of most countries, several data regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of influenza immunization were collected worldwide. Interestingly, together with the confirmation that influenza vaccines are effective in reducing the incidence of influenza virus infection and the incidence and severity of influenza disease, epidemiological data have indicated that influenza immunization could be useful for controlling antimicrobial resistance (AMR) development. Knowledge of the reliability of these findings seems essential for precise quantification of the clinical relevance of influenza immunization. If definitively confirmed, these findings can have a relevant impact on influenza vaccine development and use. Moreover, they can be used to convince even the most recalcitrant health authorities of the need to extend influenza immunization to the entire population. In this narrative review, present knowledge regarding these particular aspects of influenza immunization is discussed. Literature analysis showed that the specific effects of influenza immunization are great enough per se to recommend systematic annual immunization of younger children, old people, and all individuals with severe chronic underlying diseases. Moreover, influenza immunization can significantly contribute to limiting the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. The problem of the possible nonspecific effects of influenza vaccines remains unsolved. The definition of their role as inducers of trained immunity seems essential not only to evaluate how much they play a role in the prevention of infectious diseases but also to evaluate whether they can be used to prevent and treat clinical conditions in which chronic inflammation and autoimmunity play a fundamental pathogenetic role.

Roles for Pathogen Interference in Influenza Vaccination, with Implications to Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) and Attribution of Influenza Deaths

Pathogen interference is the ability of one pathogen to alter the course and clinical outcomes of infection by another. With up to 3000 species of human pathogens the potential combinations are vast. These combinations operate within further immune complexity induced by infection with multiple persistent pathogens, and by the role which the human microbiome plays in maintaining health, immune function, and resistance to infection. All the above are further complicated by malnutrition in children and the elderly. Influenza vaccination offers a measure of protection for elderly individuals subsequently infected with influenza. However, all vaccines induce both specific and non-specific effects. The specific effects involve stimulation of humoral and cellular immunity, while the nonspecific effects are far more nuanced including changes in gene expression patterns and production of small RNAs which contribute to pathogen interference. Little is known about the outcomes of vaccinated elderly not subsequently infected with influenza but infected with multiple other non-influenza winter pathogens. In this review we propose that in certain years the specific antigen mix in the seasonal influenza vaccine inadvertently increases the risk of infection from other non-influenza pathogens. The possibility that vaccination could upset the pathogen balance, and that the timing of vaccination relative to the pathogen balance was critical to success, was proposed in 2010 but was seemingly ignored. Persons vaccinated early in the winter are more likely to experience higher pathogen interference. Implications to the estimation of vaccine effectiveness and influenza deaths are discussed.

System Complexity in Influenza Infection and Vaccination: Effects upon Excess Winter Mortality

Unexpected outcomes are usually associated with interventions in complex systems. Excess winter mortality (EWM) is a measure of the net effect of all competing forces operating each winter, including influenza(s) and non-influenza pathogens. In this study over 2400 data points from 97 countries are used to look at the net effect of influenza vaccination rates in the elderly aged 65+ against excess winter mortality (EWM) each year from the winter of 1980/81 through to 2019/20. The observed international net effect of influenza vaccination ranges from a 7.8% reduction in EWM estimated at 100% elderly vaccination for the winter of 1989/90 down to a 9.3% increase in EWM for the winter of 2018/19. The average was only a 0.3% reduction in EWM for a 100% vaccinated elderly population. Such outcomes do not contradict the known protective effect of influenza vaccination against influenza mortality per se—they merely indicate that multiple complex interactions lie behind the observed net effect against all-causes (including all pathogen causes) of winter mortality. This range from net benefit to net disbenefit is proposed to arise from system complexity which includes environmental conditions (weather, solar cycles), the antigenic distance between constantly emerging circulating influenza clades and the influenza vaccine makeup, vaccination timing, pathogen interference, and human immune diversity (including individual history of host-virus, host-antigen interactions and immunosenescence) all interacting to give the observed outcomes each year. We propose that a narrow focus on influenza vaccine effectiveness misses the far wider complexity of winter mortality. Influenza vaccines may need to be formulated in different ways, and perhaps administered over a shorter timeframe to avoid the unanticipated adverse net outcomes seen in around 40% of years.

Annual flu shot: Does it help patients with COVID-19?

AIM OF THE STUDY

The impact of annual flu vaccination on the patients' clinical course with COVID-19 and the outcome were tested.

METHODS

A total of 149 patients with COVID-19-positive admitted from March 20 to May 10, 2020, were retrospectively enrolled.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight (65.8%) patients received at least a single annual flu shot in the last year, and fifty-one (34.2%) were never vaccinated. On presentation, vaccinated patients were more likely to present with gastrointestinal symptoms (P < .05). There were no significant differences between study groups in laboratory findings or clinical outcomes. In multivariate analysis, receiving the annual shot did not influence risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 1.17, 95%CI = 0.50-2.72, P = .72), intubation (OR = 1.40, 95%CI = 0.60-3.23, P = .43), complications (OR = 1.08, 95%CI = 0.52-2.26, P = .83) or mortality (OR = 1.29, 95%CI = 0.31-5.29, P = .73).

CONCLUSION

Although the benefits of the influenza vaccine for preventing disease and reducing morbidity in influenza patients are well established, no differences in outcomes for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who received their annual influenza vaccination versus the non-vaccinated cohort were evident. There is a need for future meta-analyses, including randomised controlled studies in which the number of cases is increased to validate these findings.

Effect of inactivated influenza vaccination on human coronavirus infection: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial in Hutterite colonies

Background

Although influenza vaccines provide protection against influenza viruses, concern has been raised that they may increase susceptibility to non-influenza respiratory viruses. As pandemic lockdowns end, temporal overlap of circulation of seasonal influenza viruses and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is expected. Understanding the impact of influenza vaccination on risk of coronavirus infection is therefore of considerable public health importance.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized trial where children and adolescents in Canadian Hutterite colonies were randomly assigned by colony to receive the 2008–2009 seasonal inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) or a control hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine. All 3273 colony members (vaccinated children and nonvaccine recipients) were followed for the primary outcome of RT-PCR confirmed seasonal coronavirus infection. Serum collected pre- and post-vaccination was analyzed for titers of IgG antibodies towards human coronaviruses (HCoV).

Results

The incidence of coronavirus infection was 0·18/1000 person-days in the colonies that received TIV vs 0.36/1000 person-days in the control group, hazard ratio (HR) 0.49 [0.21–1.17]. The risk reduction among non-vaccine recipients in the TIV group compared to the control group was HR 0.55 [0.24–1.23]. There was an increase in the geometric mean fold change of HCoV-OC43 antibody titers following TIV compared to HepA vaccine (mean difference 1.2 [0.38–2.06], p = 0.007), and an increase in geometric mean HCoV-NL63 antibody titers post-TIV (262.9 vs 342.9, p = 0.03).

Conclusion

The influenza vaccine does not increase the risk of a coronavirus infection. Instead, the influenza vaccine may reduce the rate of coronavirus infections by inducing cross-reactive anti-coronavirus IgG antibodies.

Harnessing the non-specific immunogenic effects of available vaccines to combat COVID-19

No proven remedy is identified for COVID-19 yet. SARS-CoV-2, the viral agent, is recognized by some endosomal and cytosolic receptors following cell entry, entailing innate and adaptive immunity stimulation, notably through interferon induction. Impairment in immunity activation in some patients, mostly elderlies, leads to high mortalities; thus, promoting immune responses may help. BCG vaccine is under investigation to prevent COVID-19 due to its non-specific effects on the immune system. However, other complementary immune-induction methods at early stages of the disease may be needed. Here, the potentially preventive immunologic effects of BCG and influenza vaccination are compared with the immune response defects caused by aging and COVID-19. BCG co-administration with interferon-α/-β, or influenza vaccine is suggested to overcome its shortcomings in interferon signaling against COVID-19. However, further studies are highly recommended to assess the outcomes of such interventions considering their probable adverse effects especially augmented innate immune responses and overproduction of proinflammatory mediators.

Impact of influenza vaccination in the Netherlands, 2007-2016: Vaccinees consult their general practitioner for clinically diagnosed influenza, acute respiratory infections, and pneumonia more often than non-vaccinees

Introduction

We aimed to develop an innovative population-based method to estimate the health effect of influenza vaccination based on electronic medical records collected within a general practitioner (GP)-based influenza surveillance system in the Netherlands.

Methods

In each season between 2006/07 and 2015/16, we fitted multilevel Poisson regression models to compare GP consultation rates for clinically diagnosed influenza, acute respiratory infections (ARI), pneumonia, and lower back pain (as a control) between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals. Season-specific relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled into summary risk ratio (SRR) through random-effects meta-analysis models. Analyses were stratified by patient age (<45, 45–59, 60–74, ≥75 years) and medical indication for the vaccine (any vs. none, subjects aged ≤60 years only).

Results

Overall, 12.6% and 21.4% of study subjects were vaccinated because of their age only or because of an underlying medical condition. Vaccine uptake declined over time, especially among subjects aged ≤74 years with medical indications for vaccination. Vaccinated individuals had significantly higher GP consultation rates for clinically diagnosed influenza (SRR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12–1.38, p-value <0.001), ARI (SRR 1.33, 95% CI 1.27–1.39, p-value <0.001), pneumonia (SRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19–1.36, p-value <0.001), and lower back pain (SRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14–1.28, p-value <0.001) compared to unvaccinated individuals.

Discussion

Contrary to expectations, influenza vaccinees have GP consultation rates for clinically diagnosed influenza, ARI and pneumonia that are 24–33% higher compared to unvaccinated individuals. The lower back pain finding suggests that the increase in consultation rates is partially caused by confounding. Importantly, considering the data are not laboratory-confirmed, our results cannot be linked directly to influenza, but only to respiratory illnesses in general.

Association between Influenza Vaccine Administration and Primary Care Consultations for Respiratory Infections: Sentinel Network Study of Five Seasons (2014/2015-2018/2019) in the UK

Influenza, a vaccine preventable disease, is a serious global public health concern which results in a considerable burden on the healthcare system. However, vaccine hesitancy is increasingly becoming a global problem. One prevalent misconception is that influenza vaccinations can cause the flu. We carried out this study to determine whether people undertaking influenza vaccination presented less with acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI) and influenza-like-illness (ILI) following vaccination. We utilised the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre sentinel database to examine English patients who received vaccination between 2014/2015 and 2018/2019. Of the 3,841,700 influenza vaccinations identified, vaccination details and primary care respiratory consultation counts were extracted to calculate the relative incidence (RI) per exposure risk period using the self-controlled case series methodology. Results showed a significant increase in the RI of respiratory consultation rates within fourteen days of vaccination across all five years. Less than 6.2% of vaccinations led to consultations for ARTI or ILI in primary care (crude consultation rate 6196 per 100,000). These findings, particularly if confirmed in further research, may reduce the risk of cross-infection between waiting patients and increase uptake of influenza vaccine.

Toxicology issues related to the COVID–19 outbreak

In viral pandemics, such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19), the impact of real-life exposures to multiple toxic stressors that increase immune system dysfunction is followed by the main pandemic-associated virus (SARS–CoV–2, for COVID–19) exploiting the dysfunctional immune system to trigger a chain of events ultimately leading to the pandemic (COVID–19). Thus pandemics have two main components: virology (focused on the virus) and toxicology (focused on the toxic stressors).

The present chapter will focus mainly on the immune system toxicology component. It identifies the factors shown most frequently to increase immune system dysfunction, and then addresses vaccine toxicology in detail. The chapter concludes by reviewing two types of treatments: immune-augmenting and immune-strengthening. The immune-augmenting approaches are virology-centric (e.g., quarantine, face masks, repurposed antiviral treatments, vaccines, etc.), and the immune-strengthening approaches are toxicology-centric (e.g., eliminating the factors that contribute to immune system dysfunction, and adding factors that increase immune system health).

Vaccine- and natural infection-induced mechanisms that could modulate vaccine safety

A degraded/dysfunctional immune system appears to be the main determinant of serious/fatal reaction to viral infection (for COVID-19, SARS, and influenza alike). There are four major approaches being employed or considered presently to augment or strengthen the immune system, in order to reduce adverse effects of viral exposure. The three approaches that are focused mainly on augmenting the immune system are based on the concept that pandemics/outbreaks can be controlled/prevented while maintaining the immune-degrading lifestyles followed by much of the global population. The fourth approach is based on identifying and introducing measures aimed at strengthening the immune system intrinsically in order to minimize future pandemics/outbreaks. Specifically, the four measures are: 1) restricting exposure to virus; 2) providing reactive/tactical treatments to reduce viral load; 3) developing vaccines to prevent, or at least attenuate, the infection; 4) strengthening the immune system intrinsically, by a) identifying those factors that contribute to degrading the immune system, then eliminating/reducing them as comprehensively, thoroughly, and rapidly as possible, and b) replacing the eliminated factors with immune-strengthening factors. This paper focuses on vaccine safety. A future COVID-19 vaccine appears to be the treatment of choice at the national/international level. Vaccine development has been accelerated to achieve this goal in the relatively near-term, and questions have arisen whether vaccine safety has been/is being/will be compromised in pursuit of a shortened vaccine development time. There are myriad mechanisms related to vaccine-induced, and natural infection-induced, infections that could adversely impact vaccine effectiveness and safety. This paper summarizes many of those mechanisms.

Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season

PURPOSE

Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Test-negative study designs are often utilized to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness. The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction. This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined.

RESULTS

We compared vaccination status of 2880 people with non-influenza respiratory viruses to 3240 people with pan-negative results. Comparing vaccinated to non-vaccinated patients, the adjusted odds ratio for non-flu viruses was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86, 1.09; p = 0.60). Additionally, the vaccination status of 3349 cases of influenza were compared to three different control groups: all controls (N = 6120), non-influenza positive controls (N = 2880), and pan-negative controls (N = 3240). The adjusted ORs for the comparisons among the three control groups did not vary much (range: 0.46-0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.