A study to evaluate the immunogenicity and shedding of live attenuated influenza vaccine strains in children 24–<48 months of age

An Optimised Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Ferret Efficacy Model Successfully Translates H1N1 Clinical Data

Between 2013 and 2016, the A/H1N1pdm09 component of the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) produced instances of lower-than-expected vaccine effectiveness. Standard pre-clinical ferret models, using a human-like vaccine dose and focusing on antigenic match to circulating wildtype (wt) strains, were unable to predict these fluctuations. By optimising the vaccine dose and utilising clinically relevant endpoints, we aimed to develop a ferret efficacy model able to reproduce clinical observations. Ferrets were intranasally vaccinated with 4 Log10 FFU/animal (1000-fold reduction compared to clinical dose) of seven historical LAIV formulations with known (19-90%) H1N1 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness (VE). Following homologous H1N1 wt virus challenge, protection was assessed based on primary endpoints of wt virus shedding in the upper respiratory tract and the development of fever. LAIV formulations with high (82-90%) H1N1 VE provided significant protection from wt challenge, while formulations with reduced (19-32%) VE tended not to provide significant protection. The strongest correlation observed was between reduction in wt shedding and VE (R2 = 0.75). Conversely, serum immunogenicity following vaccination was not a reliable indicator of protection (R2 = 0.37). This demonstrated that, by optimisation of the vaccine dose and the use of non-serological, clinically relevant protection endpoints, the ferret model could successfully translate clinical H1N1 LAIV VE data.

Vaccination of Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide the vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and nonrandomized studies on the efficacy and safety of vaccines used by adults with cancer or their household contacts. This review builds on a 2013 guideline by the Infectious Disease Society of America. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2013, to February 16, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 102 publications were included in the systematic review: 24 systematic reviews, 14 RCTs, and 64 nonrandomized studies. The largest body of evidence addressed COVID-19 vaccines.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The goal of vaccination is to limit the severity of infection and prevent infection where feasible. Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer. This approach includes the documentation of vaccination status at the time of the first patient visit; timely provision of recommended vaccines; and appropriate revaccination after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, or B-cell-depleting therapy. Active interaction and coordination among healthcare providers, including primary care practitioners, pharmacists, and nursing team members, are needed. Vaccination of household contacts will enhance protection for patients with cancer. Some vaccination and revaccination plans for patients with cancer may be affected by the underlying immune status and the anticancer therapy received. As a result, vaccine strategies may differ from the vaccine recommendations for the general healthy adult population vaccine.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Nasal shedding of vaccine viruses after immunization with a Russian-backbone live attenuated influenza vaccine in India

BACKGROUND

We present post-vaccination nasal shedding findings from the phase IV, community-based, triple-blinded RCT conducted to assess efficacy of trivalent LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccines in rural north India.

METHODS

Children aged 2-10 years received LAIV or intranasal placebo across 2015 and 2016, as per initial allocation. On days 2 and 4 post-vaccination, trained study nurses collected nasal swabs from randomly selected subset of trial participants based on operational feasibility, accounting for 10.0% and 11.4% of enrolled participants in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Swabs were collected in viral transport medium and transported under cold chain to laboratory for testing by reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

In year 1, on day 2 post-vaccination, 71.2% (74/104) of LAIV recipients shed at least one of vaccine virus strains compared to 42.3% (44/104) on day 4. During year 1, on day 2 post-vaccination, LAIV-A(H1N1)pdm09 was detected in nasal swabs of 12% LAIV recipients, LAIV-A(H3N2) in 41%, and LAIV-B in 59%. In year 2, virus shedding was substantially lower; 29.6% (32/108) of LAIV recipients shed one of the vaccine virus strains on day 2 compared to 21.3% on day 4 (23/108).

CONCLUSION

At day 2 post-vaccination in year 1, two-thirds of LAIV recipients were shedding vaccine viruses. Shedding of vaccine viruses varied between strains and was lower in year 2. More research is needed to determine the reason for lower virus shedding and vaccine efficacy for LAIV-A(H1N1)pdm09.

Revisiting live attenuated influenza vaccine efficacy among children in developing countries

Seasonal influenza epidemics cause significant pediatric mortality and morbidity worldwide. Live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) can be administered intranasally, induce a broad and robust immune response, demonstrate higher yields during manufacturing as compared to inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs), and thereby represent an attractive possibility for young children in developing countries. We summarize recent pediatric studies evaluating LAIV efficacy in developing countries where a large proportion of the influenza-virus-associated respiratory disease burden occurs. Recently, two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing Russian-backbone trivalent LAIV in children reported contradictory results; vaccine efficacy varied between Bangladesh (41 %) and Senegal (0.0 %) against all influenza viral strains. Prior to 2013, Ann Arbor-based LAIV demonstrated superior efficacy as compared to IIV. However, due to low effectiveness of the Ann Arbor-based LAIV against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09-like viruses, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended against the use of LAIV during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 influenza seasons. Reduced replicative fitness of the A(H1N1)pdm09 LAIV strains is thought to have led to the low effectiveness of the Ann-Arbor-based LAIV. Once the A(H1N1)pdm09 component was updated, the ACIP reintroduced the Ann-Arbor-based LAIV as a vaccine choice for the 2018-19 influenza season. In 2021, results from a 2-year RCT evaluating the Russian-backbone trivalent LAIV in rural north India reported that LAIV demonstrated significantly lower efficacy compared to IIV, but in Year 2, the vaccine efficacy for LAIV and IIV was comparable. A profounder understanding of the mechanisms underlying varied efficacy of LAIV in developing countries is warranted. Assessing replicative fitness, in addition to antigenicity, when selecting annual A(H1N1)pdm09 components in the Russian-backbone trivalent LAIVs is essential and may ultimately, enable widespread utility in resource-poor settings.

Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2021-2022

This technical report accompanies the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the routine use of the influenza vaccine and antiviral medications in the prevention and treatment of influenza in children during the 2021-2022 season. Influenza vaccination is an important intervention to protect vulnerable populations and reduce the burden of respiratory illnesses during circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which is expected to continue during this influenza season. In this technical report, we summarize recent influenza seasons, morbidity and mortality in children, vaccine effectiveness, vaccination coverage, and detailed guidance on storage, administration, and implementation. We also provide background on inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccine recommendations, vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding, diagnostic testing, and antiviral medications for treatment and chemoprophylaxis.

Live Attenuated Cold-Adapted Influenza Vaccines

Live attenuated, cold-adapted influenza vaccines exhibit several desirable characteristics, including the induction of systemic, mucosal, and cell-mediated immunity resulting in breadth of protection, ease of administration, and yield. Seasonal live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) were developed in the United States and Russia and have been used in several countries. In the last decade, following the incorporation of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain, the performance of both LAIVs has been variable and the U.S.-backbone LAIV was less effective than the corresponding inactivated influenza vaccines. The cause appears to be reduced replicative fitness of some H1N1pdm09 viruses, indicating a need for careful selection of strains included in multivalent LAIV formulations. Assays are now being implemented to select optimal strains. An improved understanding of the determinants of replicative fitness of vaccine strains and of vaccine effectiveness of LAIVs is needed for public health systems to take full advantage of these valuable vaccines.

Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization in the United States: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States.

METHODS

We searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089).

RESULTS

Of 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of  intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE).

CONCLUSIONS

Across a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.

Defining the root cause of reduced H1N1 live attenuated influenza vaccine effectiveness: low viral fitness leads to inter-strain competition

In the 2013-14 and 2015-16 influenza seasons, reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE) was observed for the H1N1 component of the FluMist quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (QLAIV) in the USA, leading to loss of Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation. Here we demonstrate in ferrets that 2015-16A/H1N1pdm09 vaccine strain A/Bolivia/559/2013 (A/BOL13) is outcompeted in trivalent (TLAIV) and QLAIV formulations, leading to reduced protection from wild-type challenge. While monovalent (MLAIV) A/BOL13 provided significant protection from wild-type virus shedding and fever at doses as low as 3.0 log₁₀ fluorescent focus units (FFU), it failed to provide a similar level of protection in TLAIV or QLAIV formulation, even at a 6.0 log₁₀ FFU dose. Conversely, clinically effective H1N1 strain A/New Caledonia/20/1999 provided significant protection in MLAIV, TLAIV, and QLAIV formulations. In conclusion, reduced A/BOL13 replicative fitness rendered it susceptible to inter-strain competition in QLAIV, contributing to its reduced VE in the 2015-16 season.

Routine Childhood Vaccines Given From 1 through 18 Years of Age

In addition to the vaccines due in the first year of life, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that children continue to receive vaccines regularly against a variety of infectious diseases. Starting at 12 to 15 months of life, these include the two-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccine series and the two-dose varicella vaccine series. Also in the second year of life, infants should begin the two-dose hepatitis A vaccine series and complete the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine series as well as the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine series. Before 19 months of life, infants should receive the third dose of the poliovirus vaccine and the fourth dose of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine. The final doses of poliovirus and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccines are both due at 4 to 6 years of life. Before each influenza season, every child should receive the influenza vaccine. Those less than 9 years of age who previously received less than two doses need two doses a month apart. At 11 to 12 years of life, all should get two doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine, the adolescent/adult version of the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine, and begin a two-dose series of meningococcal ACWY vaccine. Each of these vaccines is due when the vaccine works to protect against both an immediate risk as well as to provide long-term protection. Each vaccine-preventable disease varies in terms of the nature of exposure, the form of the morbidity, the risk of mortality, and potential to prevent or ameliorate its harm.