Safety of cold-adapted live attenuated influenza vaccine in a large cohort of children and adolescents

mRNA vaccines: The future of prevention of viral infections?

Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against COVID-19 are the first authorized biological preparations developed using this platform. During the pandemic, their administration has been proven to be a life-saving intervention. Here, we review the main advantages of using mRNA vaccines, identify further technological challenges to be met during the development of the mRNA platform, and provide an update on the clinical progress on leading mRNA vaccine candidates against different viruses that include influenza viruses, human immunodeficiency virus 1, respiratory syncytial virus, Nipah virus, Zika virus, human cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus. The prospects and challenges of manufacturing mRNA vaccines in low-income countries are also discussed. The ongoing interest and research in mRNA technology are likely to overcome some existing challenges for this technology (e.g., related to storage conditions and immunogenicity of some components of lipid nanoparticles) and enhance the portfolio of vaccines against diseases for which classical formulations are already authorized. It may also open novel pathways of protection against infections and their consequences for which no safe and efficient immunization methods are currently available.

Risk Factors Affecting Development and Persistence of Preschool Wheezing: Consensus Document of the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group

Wheezing at preschool age (i.e., before the age of six) is common, occurring in about 30% of children before the age of three. In terms of health care burden, preschool children with wheeze show double the rate of access to the emergency department and five times the rate of hospital admissions compared with school-age asthmatics. The consensus document aims to analyse the underlying mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of preschool wheezing and define the risk factors (i.e., allergy, atopy, infection, bronchiolitis, genetics, indoor and outdoor pollution, tobacco smoke exposure, obesity, prematurity) and the protective factors (i.e., probiotics, breastfeeding, vitamin D, influenza vaccination, non-specific immunomodulators) associated with the development of the disease in the young child. A multidisciplinary panel of experts from the Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy, addressed twelve key questions regarding managing preschool wheezing. Clinical questions have been formulated by the expert panel using the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). Systematic reviews have been conducted on PubMed to answer these specific questions and formulate recommendations. The GRADE approach has been used for each selected paper to assess the quality of the evidence and the degree of recommendations. Based on a panel of experts and extensive updated literature, this consensus document provides insight into the pathogenesis, risk and protective factors associated with the development and persistence of preschool wheezing. Undoubtedly, more research is needed to improve our understanding of the disease and confirm the associations between certain factors and the risk of wheezing in early life. In addition, preventive strategies must be promoted to avoid children's exposure to risk factors that may permanently affect respiratory health.

Safety of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine in Children With Asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Asthma is considered a precaution for use of quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) in persons aged ≥5 years because of concerns for wheezing events. We evaluated the safety of LAIV4 in children with asthma, comparing the proportion of children with asthma exacerbations after LAIV4 or quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4).

METHODS

We enrolled 151 children with asthma, aged 5 to 17 years, during 2 influenza seasons. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive IIV4 or LAIV4 and monitored for asthma symptoms, exacerbations, changes in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), and changes in the asthma control test for 42 days after vaccination.

RESULTS

We included 142 participants in the per-protocol analysis. Within 42 days postvaccination, 18 of 142 (13%) experienced an asthma exacerbation: 8 of 74 (11%) in the LAIV4 group versus 10 of 68 (15%) in the IIV4 group (LAIV4-IIV4 = -0.0390 [90% confidence interval -0.1453 to 0.0674]), meeting the bounds for noninferiority. When adjusted for asthma severity, LAIV4 remained noninferior to IIV4. There were no significant differences in the frequency of asthma symptoms, change in PEFR, or childhood asthma control test/asthma control test scores in the 14 days postvaccination between LAIV4 and IIV4 recipients. Vaccine reactogenicity was similar between groups, although sore throat (P = .051) and myalgia (P <.001) were more common in the IIV4 group.

CONCLUSIONS

LAIV4 was not associated with increased frequency of asthma exacerbations, an increase in asthma-related symptoms, or a decrease in PEFR compared with IIV4 among children aged 5 to 17 years with asthma.

Intranasal vaccine: Factors to consider in research and development

Most existing vaccines for human use are administered by needle-based injection. Administering vaccines needle-free intranasally has numerous advantages over by needle-based injection, but there are only a few intranasal vaccines that are currently approved for human use, and all of them are live attenuated influenza virus vaccines. Clearly, there are immunological as well as non-immunological challenges that prevent vaccine developers from choosing the intranasal route of administration. We reviewed current approved intranasal vaccines and pipelines and described the target of intranasal vaccines, i.e. nose and lymphoid tissues in the nasal cavity. We then analyzed factors unique to intranasal vaccines that need to be considered when researching and developing new intranasal vaccines. We concluded that while the choice of vaccine formulations, mucoadhesives, mucosal and epithelial permeation enhancers, and ligands that target M-cells are important, safe and effective intranasal mucosal vaccine adjuvants are needed to successfully develop an intranasal vaccine that is not based on live-attenuated viruses or bacteria. Moreover, more effective intranasal vaccine application devices that can efficiently target a vaccine to lymphoid tissues in the nasal cavity as well as preclinical animal models that can better predict intranasal vaccine performance in clinical trials are needed to increase the success rate of intranasal vaccines in clinical trials.

Safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in children and adults with asthma: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is one of the most common chronic respiratory conditions worldwide and can be exacerbated by influenza. Findings from early trials demonstrated a higher risk of medically significant wheezing in otherwise healthy young children (aged 6 - 23 months) following administration of the Ann Arbor-backbone live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV-AA). In more recent years, several additional studies have investigated the safety of LAIV-AA in older children (2 - 17 years of age) and adults with asthma or prior wheezing, but these findings have not yet been systematically evaluated.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a systematic literature review to assess and synthesize the evidence from all available studies on the safety of LAIV-AA in people aged 2 - 49 years with a diagnosis of asthma or recurrent wheezing.

EXPERT OPINION

Fourteen studies over 20 years, involving a total of 1.2 million participants, provided evidence that LAIV-AA was well tolerated with no safety concerns in individuals aged 2 - 49 years with a diagnosis of asthma or recurrent wheezing. These data can help inform guidelines for use of LAIV-AA in children and adults with a history of asthma or recurrent wheezing.

Protective Intranasal Immunization Against Influenza Virus in Infant Mice Is Dependent on IL-6

Respiratory diseases adversely affect infants and are the focus of efforts to develop vaccinations and other modalities to prevent disease. The infant immune system differs from that of older children and adults in many ways that are as yet ill understood. We have used a C57BL/6 mouse model of infection with a laboratory- adapted strain of influenza (PR8) to delineate the importance of the cytokine IL-6 in the innate response to primary infection and in the development of protective immunity in adult mice. Herein, we used this same model in infant (14 days of age) mice to determine the effect of IL-6 deficiency. Infant wild type mice are more susceptible than older mice to infection, similar to the findings in humans. IL-6 is expressed in the lung in the early response to PR8 infection. While intramuscular immunization does not protect against lethal challenge, intranasal administration of heat inactivated virus is protective and correlates with expression of IL-6 in the lung, activation of lung CD8 cells, and development of an influenza-specific antibody response. In IL-6 deficient mice, this response is abrogated, and deficient mice are not protected against lethal challenge. These studies support the importance of the role of the tissue environment in infant immunity, and further suggest that IL-6 may be helpful in the generation of protective immune responses in infants.

Impact of Pre-Existing Immunity to Influenza on Live-Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) Immunogenicity

During the previous influenza seasons, between 2010 and 2016, the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) provided variable efficacy against influenza in the U.S., causing the recommendation against the use of the LAIV. In striking contrast, pre-clinical studies have repeatedly demonstrated superior efficacy of LAIV against mismatched influenza viruses, compared to inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV). This disparity in reported vaccine efficacies between pre-clinical and clinical studies may in part be explained by limitations of the animal models of influenza. In particular, the absence of pre-existing immunity in animal models has recently emerged as a potential explanation for the discrepancies between preclinical findings and human studies. This commentary focuses on the potential impact of pre-existing immunity on LAIV induced immunogenicity with an emphasis on cross-protective immunity.

Safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in children with moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is recommended for annual influenza vaccination in children from age 2 years. However, some guidelines recommend against its use in children with asthma or recurrent wheeze due to concerns over its potential to induce wheezing.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the safety of LAIV in children with moderate to severe asthma, and in preschool children with recurrent wheeze.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, open-label, phase IV intervention study in 14 specialist UK clinics. LAIV was administered under medical supervision, with follow-up of asthma symptoms 72 hours and 4 weeks late, using validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 478 young people (median, 9.3; range, 2-18 years) with physician-diagnosed asthma or recurrent wheeze were recruited, including 208 (44%) prescribed high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and 122 (31%) with severe asthma. There was no significant change in asthma symptoms in the 4 weeks after administration (median change, 0; P = .26, McNemar test), with no impact of level of baseline asthma control/symptoms in predicting either a worsening of asthma or exacerbation after LAIV using a regression model. A total of 47 subjects (14.7%; 95% CI, 11%-19.1%) reported a severe asthma exacerbation in the 4 weeks after immunization, requiring a short course of systemic corticosteroids; in 4 cases, this occurred within 72 hours of vaccination. No association with asthma severity, baseline lung function, or asthma control was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

LAIV appears to be well tolerated in the vast majority of children with asthma or recurrent wheeze, including those whose asthma is categorized as severe or poorly controlled.

Increasing the Safety Profile of the Master Donor Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine

Seasonal influenza epidemics remain one of the largest public health burdens nowadays. The best and most effective strategy to date in preventing influenza infection is a worldwide vaccination campaign. Currently, two vaccines are available to the public for the treatment of influenza infection, the chemically Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (IIV) and the Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV). However, the LAIV is not recommended for parts of the population, such as children under the age of two, immunocompromised individuals, the elderly, and pregnant adults. In order to improve the safety of the LAIV and make it available to more of the population, we sought to further attenuate the LAIV. In this study, we demonstrate that the influenza A virus (IAV) master donor virus (MDV) A/Ann Arbor/6/60 H2N2 LAIV can inhibit host gene expression using both the PA-X and NS1 proteins. Furthermore, we show that by removing PA-X, we can limit the replication of the MDV LAIV in a mouse model, while maintaining full protective efficacy. This work demonstrates a broadly applicable strategy of tuning the amount of host antiviral responses induced by the IAV MDV for the development of newer and safer LAIVs. Moreover, our results also demonstrate, for the first time, the feasibility of genetically manipulating the backbone of the IAV MDV to improve the efficacy of the current IAV LAIV.

Safety of guidelines recommending live attenuated influenza vaccine for routine use in children and adolescents with asthma

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate whether a guideline recommending Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) for children 2 years and older with asthma increased risks for lower respiratory events (LREs), within 21 or 42 days of vaccination, as compared to standard guidelines to administer Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (IIV) in children with asthma.

METHODS

This was a pre/post guideline retrospective cohort study of children ages 2-17 years with asthma and receiving one or more influenza vaccines in two large medical groups from 2007 to 2016. Both groups recommended IIV in the pre-period; in 2010, one group implemented a guideline recommending LAIV for all children, including those with asthma. Main outcomes were medically attended LREs within 21 and 42 days after influenza immunization. Analysis used a generalized estimating equation regression to estimate the ratio of rate ratios (RORs) comparing pre/post events between LAIV guideline and control group.

RESULTS

The cohort included 7851 influenza vaccinations in 4771 children with asthma. Among patients in the LAIV guideline group, the proportion receiving LAIV increased from 23% to 68% post-guideline implementation, versus an increase from 7 to 11% in the control group. Age and baseline asthma severity adjusted ROR showed no increase in LREs, primarily asthma exacerbations, following implementation of the LAIV guideline: overall aROR (95% Confidence Interval): 0.74 (0.43-1.29) for LRE within 21 days of vaccination, 0.77 (0.53-1.14) for LRE within 42 days of vaccination. For the subset of children ages 2-4 years aROR: 0.92 (0.34-2.53) for LRE within 21 days of vaccination and 0.94 (0.49-1.82) for LRE within 42 days of vaccination; for children 5-18 years aROR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.26-1.30) for LRE within 21 days of vaccination and 0.67 (0.37-1.23) for LRE within 42 days.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of children with asthma, a guideline recommending LAIV rather than IIV did not increase LREs following vaccination.

Evaluation of the safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in children and adolescents with asthma and high-risk conditions: a population-based prospective cohort study conducted in England with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in children in high-risk groups.

DESIGN

Non-interventional cohort study.

SETTING

England during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 influenza seasons.

PARTICIPANTS

LAIV recipients identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, aged 2-17 years, and with at least one underlying high-risk condition. LAIV recipients were matched with inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) recipients and unvaccinated controls.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary safety endpoints were any hospitalisation documented in the linked Hospital Episodes Statistics database within 42 days and up to 6 months after vaccination.

RESULTS

11 463 children and adolescents were included: 4718 received the trivalent LAIV formulation during the 2013-2014 influenza season and 6745 received the quadrivalent formulation during the 2014-2015 influenza season. The risks of hospitalisation within 42 days were 231 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 193 to 275) in season 2013-2014 and 231 (95% CI 198 to 267) in season 2014-2015. These risks were not significantly different when compared with matched unvaccinated children (relative risks (RR) 0.96 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.19) in season 2013-2014, 0.90 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.07) in season 2014-2015) and consistently lower than after IIV administration (RR 0.47 (95% CI: 0.37 to 0.59) in season 2013-2014, 0.42 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.51) in season 2014-2015). A similar pattern was observed up to 6 months postvaccination with a risk of hospitalisation after LAIV administration that did not differ from what was observed in unvaccinated controls and was lower than after IIV administration.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not identify new safety concerns associated with the administration of LAIV in children and adolescents with high-risk conditions. However, as with any other observational study, treatment administration was not randomly assigned and our findings may be confounded by differences between the groups at baseline.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EUPAS18527.

Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccination Before 3 Years of Age and Subsequent Development of Asthma: A 14-year Follow-up Study

BACKGROUND

Live-attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) are not licensed in children younger than 2 years of age because of a wheezing safety signal that has not been fully elucidated. In 2000, the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center conducted a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT) of LAIV in children. As many of these children were still enrolled in Kaiser Permanente in 2014, we could assess the possible long-term association between LAIV and subsequent asthma diagnosis.

METHODS

We identified all children who were originally enrolled into the LAIV RCT at younger than 3 years of age. We followed up subjects until disenrollment from the health plan, a first diagnosis of asthma, or through the end of the study period in 2014. Asthma was defined by a first International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification code (493.*) assigned at an outpatient or emergency department encounter. We performed a survival analysis of time to first asthma diagnosis among children receiving LAIV or placebo with a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

We identified 1151 children in the original RCT who were 12 through 35 months of age at the time of enrollment and who had received 2 doses of LAIV or placebo. A total of 767 (66.7%) RCT participants were still Kaiser Permanente Northern California members in 2014. There was no evidence of differential dropout by treatment group. The hazard ratio for new-onset asthma for LAIV recipients compared with placebo was 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.41; P = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of increased risk of subsequent asthma diagnosis among children younger than 3 years of age who received LAIV compared with placebo.

Influenza vaccines: Evaluation of the safety profile

The safety of vaccines is a critical factor in maintaining public trust in national vaccination programs. Vaccines are recommended for children, adults and elderly subjects and have to meet higher safety standards, since they are administered to healthy subjects, mainly healthy children. Although vaccines are strictly monitored before authorization, the possibility of adverse events and/or rare adverse events cannot be totally eliminated. Two main types of influenza vaccines are currently available: parenteral inactivated influenza vaccines and intranasal live attenuated vaccines. Both display a good safety profile in adults and children. However, they can cause adverse events and/or rare adverse events, some of which are more prevalent in children, while others with a higher prevalence in adults. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of influenza vaccine safety according to target groups, vaccine types and production methods.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people over 65 years of age. This is an update of a review published in 2011. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 12), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy children under 16 years. Previous versions of this review included 19 cohort and 11 case-control studies. We are no longer updating the searches for these study designs but have retained the observational studies for historical purposes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the key outcomes of influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), complications (hospitalisation, ear infection), and adverse events. Due to variation in control group risks for influenza and ILI, absolute effects are reported as the median control group risk, and numbers needed to vaccinate (NNVs) are reported accordingly. For other outcomes aggregate control group risks are used.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 clinical trials (> 200,000 children). Most of the studies were conducted in children over the age of two and compared live attenuated or inactivated vaccines with placebo or no vaccine. Studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in the USA, Western Europe, Russia, and Bangladesh between 1984 and 2013. Restricting analyses to studies at low risk of bias showed that influenza and otitis media were the only outcomes where the impact of bias was negligible. Variability in study design and reporting impeded meta-analysis of harms outcomes.Live attenuated vaccinesCompared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.41; 7718 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80; 124,606 children; low-certainty evidence). Seven children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 20 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one child experiencing an ILI. Acute otitis media is probably similar following vaccine or placebo during seasonal influenza, but this result comes from a single study with particularly high rates of acute otitis media (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. Vaccinating children may lead to fewer parents taking time off work, although the CI includes no effect (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence). Data on the most serious consequences of influenza complications leading to hospitalisation were not available. Data from four studies measuring fever following vaccination varied considerably, from 0.16% to 15% in children who had live vaccines, while in the placebo groups the proportions ranged from 0.71% to 22% (very low-certainty evidence). Data on nausea were not reported.Inactivated vaccinesCompared with placebo or no vaccination, inactivated vaccines reduce the risk of influenza in children aged 2 to 16 years from 30% to 11% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.48; 1628 children; high-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 28% to 20% (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.79; 19,044 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Five children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 12 children would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. The risk of otitis media is probably similar between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children (31% versus 27%), although the CI does not exclude a meaningful increase in otitis media following vaccination (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.40; 884 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. We identified no data on parental working time lost, hospitalisation, fever, or nausea.We found limited evidence on secondary cases, requirement for treatment of lower respiratory tract disease, and drug prescriptions. One brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine was associated with a sudden loss of muscle tone triggered by the experience of an intense emotion (cataplexy) and a sleep disorder (narcolepsy) in children. Evidence of serious harms (such as febrile fits) was sparse.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children aged between 3 and 16 years, live influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence) over a single influenza season. In this population inactivated vaccines also reduce influenza (high-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence). For both vaccine types, the absolute reduction in influenza and ILI varied considerably across the study populations, making it difficult to predict how these findings translate to different settings. We found very few randomised controlled trials in children under two years of age. Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardised approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed. Identification of all global cases of potential harms is beyond the scope of this review.

Perspectives from the Society for Pediatric Research: Decreased Effectiveness of the Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine

The intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), FluMist, has been widely appreciated by pediatricians, parents, and children alike for its ease of administration. However, concerns regarding lack of effectiveness in recent influenza seasons led to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendation to administer inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs), and not LAIV, during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons. Given that data from previous years demonstrated equivalent and even improved efficacy of LAIV compared with IIV, these recent data were surprising, raising many questions about the potential mechanisms underlying this change. This review seeks to summarize the history of LAIV studies and ACIP recommendations with a focus on the recent decrease in vaccine effectiveness (VE) and discordant results among studies performed in different countries. Decreased VE for A/H1N1pdm09 viruses represents the most consistent finding across studies, as VE has been low every season these viruses predominated since 2010-11. Potential explanations underlying diminished effectiveness include the hypothesis that prior vaccination, reduced thermostability of A/H1N1pdm09, addition of a fourth virus, or reduced replication fitness of A/H1N1pdm09 strains may have contributed to this phenomenon. Ongoing studies and potential alterations to LAIV formulations provide hope for a return of effective LAIV in future influenza seasons.

The safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine in children and adolescents 2 through 17 years of age: A Vaccine Safety Datalink study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in children 2 through 17 years of age.

METHODS

The study was conducted in 6 large integrated health care organizations participating in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Trivalent LAIV safety was assessed in children who received LAIV between September 1, 2003 and March 31, 2013. Eighteen pre-specified adverse event groups were studied, including allergic, autoimmune, neurologic, respiratory, and infectious conditions. Incident rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated for each adverse event, using self-controlled case series analyses. For adverse events with a statistically significant increase in risk, or an IRR > 2.0 regardless of statistical significance, manual medical record review was performed to confirm case status.

RESULTS

During the study period, 396 173 children received 590 018 doses of LAIV. For 13 adverse event groups, there was no significant increased risk of adverse events following LAIV. Five adverse event groups (anaphylaxis, syncope, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, adverse effect of drug, and respiratory failure) met criteria for manual medical record review. After review to confirm cases, 2 adverse event groups remained significantly associated with LAIV: anaphylaxis and syncope. One confirmed case of anaphylaxis was observed following LAIV, a rate of 1.7 per million LAIV doses. Five confirmed cases of syncope were observed, a rate of 8.5 per million doses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a study of trivalent LAIV safety in a large cohort of children, few serious adverse events were detected. Anaphylaxis and syncope occurred following LAIV, although rarely. These data provide reassurance regarding continued LAIV use.

Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common infectious diseases in children. It has been reported that 64% of infants have an episode of AOM by the age of six months and 86% by one year. Although most cases of AOM are due to bacterial infection, it is commonly triggered by a viral infection. In most children AOM is self limiting, but it does carry a risk of complications. Since antibiotic treatment increases the risk of antibiotic resistance, influenza vaccines might be an effective way of reducing this risk by preventing the development of AOM.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media in infants and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov (15 February 2017). We also searched the reference lists of included studies to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccine with placebo or no treatment in infants and children aged younger than six years. We included children of either sex and of any ethnicity, with or without a history of recurrent AOM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects and fixed-effect models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials (6 trials in high-income countries and 5 multicentre trials in high-, middle-, and low-income countries) involving 17,123 children aged 6 months to 6 years. Eight trials recruited participants from a healthcare setting. Ten trials (and all four trials that contributed to the primary outcome) declared funding from vaccine manufacturers. Four trials reported adequate allocation concealment, and 10 trials reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel. Attrition was low for eight trials included in the analysis.The primary outcome showed a small reduction in at least one episode of AOM over at least six months of follow-up (4 trials, 3134 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.00; NNTB 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100; low-quality evidence).The subgroup analyses (i.e. number of courses and types of vaccine administered) showed no differences.There was a reduction in the use of antibiotics in vaccinated children (2 trials, 1223 children; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; moderate-quality evidence).We were unable to demonstrate whether there was any difference in the utilisation of health care. The use of influenza vaccine resulted in a significant increase in fever (7 trials, 10,615 children; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; RD 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.04; low-quality evidence), rhinorrhoea (6 trials, 10,563 children; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16; low-quality evidence), but no difference in pharyngitis. No major adverse events were reported.Differing from the protocol, the original publication of the review included a subgroup analysis of AOM episodes by season, and the secondary outcome 'types of influenza vaccine' was changed to a subgroup analysis. For this update, we removed the subgroup analyses for trial setting, season, and utilisation of health care due to the small number of trials involved. We removed Belshe 2000 from primary and secondary outcomes (courses of vaccine and types of vaccine) because it reported episodes of AOM per person. We did not perform a subgroup analysis by type of adverse event. We have reported each type of adverse event as a separate analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccine results in a small reduction in AOM. The observed reduction in the use of antibiotics needs to be considered in light of current recommended practices aimed at avoiding antibiotic overuse. Safety data from these trials were limited. The benefits may not justify the use of influenza vaccine without taking into account the vaccine efficacy in reducing influenza and safety data. We judged the quality of the evidence to be low to moderate. Additional research is needed.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine use and safety in children and adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) might increase the risk of wheezing in persons with asthma or children younger than 5 years with a history of recurrent wheezing.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use and assess the safety of LAIV in persons with asthma in the Vaccine Safety Datalink population.

METHODS

We identified persons with asthma using diagnosis codes and medication records in 7 health care organizations over 3 influenza seasons (2008-2009 through 2010-2011) and determined their influenza vaccination rates. Using the self-controlled risk interval method, we calculated the incidence rate ratio of medically attended respiratory events in the 14 days after LAIV compared with 29 to 42 days after vaccination in persons 2 through 49 years old.

RESULTS

In our population of 6.3 million, asthma prevalence was 5.9%. Of persons with asthma, approximately 50% received any influenza vaccine but less than 1% received LAIV. The safety study included 12,354 LAIV doses (75% in children; 93% in those with intermittent or mild persistent asthma). The incidence rate ratio for inpatient and emergency department visits for lower respiratory events (including asthma exacerbation and wheezing) was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.51) and the incidence rate ratio for upper respiratory events was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.48-1.86). The risk of lower respiratory events was similar for intermittent and mild persistent asthma, across age groups, and for seasonal trivalent LAIV and 2009 H1N1 pandemic monovalent LAIV.

CONCLUSION

LAIV use in asthma was mostly in persons with intermittent or mild persistent asthma. LAIV was not associated with an increased risk of medically attended respiratory adverse events.

The Effects of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine on Nasopharyngeal Bacteria in Healthy 2 to 4 Year Olds. A Randomized Controlled Trial

RATIONALE

Viral infections of the upper respiratory tract may influence the commensal nasopharyngeal bacteria. Changes in the bacterial niche could affect transmission dynamics. Attenuated vaccine viruses can be used to investigate this empirically in humans.

OBJECTIVES

To study the effects of mild viral upper respiratory infections on nasopharyngeal bacterial colonization using live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) as a surrogate.

METHODS

We used trivalent LAIV to evaluate the effects of viral infection on bacterial carriage and density of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Haemophilus influenzae, and Staphylococcus aureus. A total of 151 healthy children were randomized 1:1 to receive the vaccine starting either at recruitment (n = 74) or 28 days later (n = 77) in a stepped wedge fashion, allowing comparisons between recipients and nonrecipients as well as whole-group comparisons pre- and postvaccination. Bacterial carriage and density were determined using quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 151 children were recruited, 77 in the LAIV group and 74 in the control group. LAIV recipients (n = 63 analyzed) showed an apparent transient increase in H. influenzae carriage but no further significant differences in carriage prevalence of the four bacterial species compared with controls (n = 72 analyzed). S. pneumoniae density was substantially higher in vaccine recipients (16,687 vs. 1935 gene copies per milliliter) 28 days after the first dose (P < 0.001). Whole-group multivariable analysis (prevaccine, after one dose, and after two doses) also showed increases in density of other species and H. influenzae carriage prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of any safety signals despite widespread use of the vaccine, these findings suggest that bacterial density, and thus transmission rates among children and to people in other age groups, may rise following attenuated influenza infections without associated clinical disease. LAIV could therefore be used as an experimental tool to elucidate the dynamics of transmission of nasopharyngeal bacteria.

Asthma exacerbations among asthmatic children receiving live attenuated versus inactivated influenza vaccines

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether there is a difference in the risk of asthma exacerbations between children with pre-existing asthma who receive live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) compared with inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We identified IIV and LAIV immunizations occurring between July 1, 2007 and March 31, 2014 among Kaiser Permanente Northern California members aged 2 to <18years with a history of asthma, and subsequent asthma exacerbations seen in the inpatient or Emergency Department (ED) setting. We calculated the ratio of the odds (OR) of an exacerbation being in the risk interval (1-14days) versus the comparison interval (29-42days) following immunization, separately for LAIV and IIV, and then examined whether the OR differed between children receiving LAIV and those receiving IIV ("difference-in-differences").

RESULTS

Among 387,633 immunizations, 85% were IIV and 15% were LAIV. Children getting LAIV vs. IIV were less likely to have "current or recent, persistent" asthma (25% vs. 47%), and more likely to have "remote history" of asthma (47% vs. 25%). Among IIV-vaccinated asthmatic children, the OR of an inpatient/ED asthma exacerbation was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.82-1.15). Among LAIV-vaccinated asthmatic children the OR was 0.38 (95% CI: 0.17-0.90). In the difference-in-differences analysis, the odds of asthma exacerbation following LAIV were less than IIV (Ratio of ORs: 0.40, CI: 0.17-0.95, p value: 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Among children ≥2years old with asthma, we found no increased risk of asthma exacerbation following LAIV or IIV, and a decreased risk following LAIV compared to IIV.

Hospitalizations within 14days of vaccination among pediatric recipients of the live attenuated influenza vaccine, United States 2010-2012

BACKGROUND

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is safe in healthy children ⩾2years. The original clinical trials excluded individuals with underlying conditions; however, post-marketing data suggest LAIV may be safe for these populations.

METHODS

We analyzed MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases from 2010 to 2012 to describe hospitalizations within 14days of vaccination among LAIV recipients. We evaluated LAIV recipients aged 2-18years and defined underlying conditions by presence of inpatient or outpatient ICD-9 code during the previous calendar year. We excluded asthma and immunocompromising conditions. We defined risk windows as 1-7days and 8-14days after vaccination; the control period was 12-4days prior to and 15-23days after vaccination. We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using a conditional Poisson regression model to estimate incidence-rate ratios (IRR).

RESULTS

1,216,123 children aged 2-18years received LAIV from 2010 to 2012. 634 children met our inclusion criteria and were hospitalized during the observation period (12days prior to vaccination to 23days after vaccination). Of those hospitalized, 72 (11.4%) had non-asthma, non-immunocompromising underlying conditions. Children with non-asthma, non-immunocompromising underlying conditions had an all-cause hospitalization IRR of 1.1 (95% CI 0.6-2.0, p=0.83) in the 1-7day risk period and 0.9 (95% CI 0.4-1.7, p=0.67) in the 8-14day risk period. Children with no underlying conditions had an all-cause hospitalization IRR of 0.9 (0.8-1.2, p=0.60) in the 1-7day risk period and 1.1 (95% CI 0.9-1.3, p=0.53) in the 8-14day risk period. There were no differences in all-cause hospitalization risk in individuals with non-asthma, non-immunocompromising underlying conditions compared to those without underlying conditions in the 1-7day (p=0.88) or 8-14day (p=0.24) risk period.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of differences in post-LAIV hospitalization risk among children with non-asthma, non-immunocompromising underlying conditions compared to healthy children.

The safety of influenza vaccines in children: An Institute for Vaccine Safety white paper

Most influenza vaccines are generally safe, but influenza vaccines can cause rare serious adverse events. Some adverse events, such as fever and febrile seizures, are more common in children than adults. There can be differences in the safety of vaccines in different populations due to underlying differences in genetic predisposition to the adverse event. Live attenuated vaccines have not been studied adequately in children under 2 years of age to determine the risks of adverse events; more studies are needed to address this and several other priority safety issues with all influenza vaccines in children. All vaccines intended for use in children require safety testing in the target age group, especially in young children. Safety of one influenza vaccine in children should not be extrapolated to assumed safety of all influenza vaccines in children. The low rates of adverse events from influenza vaccines should not be a deterrent to the use of influenza vaccines because of the overwhelming evidence of the burden of disease due to influenza in children.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines

This report updates the 2015-16 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines (Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Olsen SJ, Bresee JS, Broder KR, Karron RA. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2015-16 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:818-25). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For the 2016-17 influenza season, inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) will be available in both trivalent (IIV3) and quadrivalent (IIV4) formulations. Recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) will be available in a trivalent formulation (RIV3). In light of concerns regarding low effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in the United States during the 2013-14 and 2015-16 seasons, for the 2016-17 season, ACIP makes the interim recommendation that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) should not be used. Vaccine virus strains included in the 2016-17 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will be an A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)-like virus, an A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus, and a B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus (Victoria lineage). Quadrivalent vaccines will include an additional influenza B virus strain, a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (Yamagata lineage).Recommendations for use of different vaccine types and specific populations are discussed. A licensed, age-appropriate vaccine should be used. No preferential recommendation is made for one influenza vaccine product over another for persons for whom more than one licensed, recommended product is otherwise appropriate. This information is intended for vaccination providers, immunization program personnel, and public health personnel. Information in this report reflects discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 21, 2015; February 24, 2016; and June 22, 2016. These recommendations apply to all licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications, including those licensed after the publication date of this report. Updates and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check CDC's influenza website periodically for additional information.

Protection of young children from influenza through universal vaccination

Influenza is a very common disease among infants and young children, with a considerable clinical and socioeconomic impact. A significant number of health authorities presently recommend universal influenza vaccination for the pediatric population, but a large number of European health authorities is still reluctant to include influenza vaccination in their national vaccination programs. The reasons for this reluctance include the fact that the protection offered by the currently available vaccines is considered poor. This review shows that although future research could lead to an increase in the immunogenicity and potential efficacy of influenza vaccines, the available vaccines, even with their limits, assure sufficient protection in most subjects aged ≥ 6 months, thus reducing the total burden of influenza in young children and justifying the recommendation for the universal vaccination of the whole pediatric population. For younger subjects, the vaccination of their mother during pregnancy represents an efficacious strategy.

Wheeze as an adverse event in pediatric vaccine and drug randomized controlled trials: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Wheeze is an important sign indicating a potentially severe adverse event in vaccine and drug trials, particularly in children. However, there are currently no consensus definitions of wheeze or associated respiratory compromise in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVE

To identify definitions and severity grading scales of wheeze as an adverse event in vaccine and drug RCTs enrolling children <5 years and to determine their diagnostic performance based on sensitivity, specificity and inter-observer agreement.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of electronic databases and reference lists with restrictions for trial settings, English language and publication date ≥1970. Wheeze definitions and severity grading were abstracted and ranked by a diagnostic certainty score based on sensitivity, specificity and inter-observer agreement.

RESULTS

Of 1205 articles identified using our broad search terms, we identified 58 eligible trials conducted in 38 countries, mainly in high-income settings. Vaccines made up the majority (90%) of interventions, particularly influenza vaccines (65%). Only 15 trials provided explicit definitions of wheeze. Of 24 studies that described severity, 11 described wheeze severity in the context of an explicit wheeze definition. The remaining 13 studies described wheeze severity where wheeze was defined as part of a respiratory illness or a wheeze equivalent. Wheeze descriptions were elicited from caregiver reports (14%), physical examination by a health worker (45%) or a combination (41%). There were 21/58 studies in which wheeze definitions included combined caregiver report and healthcare worker assessment. The use of these two methods appeared to have the highest combined sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

Standardized wheeze definitions and severity grading scales for use in pediatric vaccine or drug trials are lacking. Standardized definitions of wheeze are needed for assessment of possible adverse events as new vaccines and drugs are evaluated.

Genetic stability of live attenuated vaccines against potentially pandemic influenza viruses

BACKGROUND

Ensuring genetic stability is a prerequisite for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). This study describes the results of virus shedding and clinical isolates' testing of Phase I clinical trials of Russian LAIVs against potentially pandemic influenza viruses in healthy adults.

METHODS

Three live attenuated vaccines against potentially pandemic influenza viruses, H2N2 LAIV, H5N2 LAIV and H7N3 LAIV, generated by classical reassortment in eggs, were studied. For each vaccine tested, subjects were randomly distributed into two groups to receive two doses of either LAIV or placebo at a 3:1 vaccine/placebo ratio. Nasal swabs were examined for vaccine virus shedding by culturing in eggs and by PCR. Vaccine isolates were tested for temperature sensitivity and cold-adaptation (ts/ca phenotypes) and for nucleotide sequence.

RESULTS

The majority of nasal wash positive specimens were detected on the first day following vaccination. PCR method demonstrated higher sensitivity than routine virus isolation in eggs. None of the placebo recipients had detectable vaccine virus replication. All viruses isolated from the immunized subjects retained the ts/ca phenotypic characteristics of the master donor virus (MDV) and were shown to preserve all attenuating mutations described for the MDV. These data suggest high level of vaccine virus genetic stability after replication in humans. During manufacture process, no additional mutations occurred in the genome of H2N2 LAIV. In contrast, one amino acid change in the HA of H7N3 LAIV and two additional mutations in the HA of H5N2 LAIV manufactured vaccine lot were detected, however, they did not affect their ts/ca phenotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our clinical trials revealed phenotypic and genetic stability of the LAIV viruses recovered from the immunized volunteers. In addition, no vaccine virus was detected in the placebo groups indicating the lack of person-to-person transmission. LAIV TRIAL REGISTRATION at ClinicalTrials.gov: H7N3-NCT01511419; H5N2-NCT01719783; H2N2-NCT01982331.

Safety of Russian-backbone seasonal trivalent, live-attenuated influenza vaccine in a phase II randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial among children in urban Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

Live-attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) have the potential to be affordable, effective, and logistically feasible for immunization of children in low-resource settings.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a phase II, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial on the safety of the Russian-backbone, seasonal trivalent LAIV among children aged 24 through 59 months in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2012. After vaccination, we monitored participants for six months with weekly home visits and study clinic surveillance for solicited and unsolicited adverse events, protocol-defined wheezing illness (PDWI), and serious adverse events (SAEs), including all cause hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Three hundred children were randomized and administered LAIV (n=150) or placebo (n=150). No immediate post-vaccination reactions occurred in either group. Solicited reactions were similar between vaccine and placebo groups during the first 7 days post-vaccination and throughout the entire trial. There were no statistically significant differences in participants experiencing PDWI between LAIV and placebo groups throughout the trial (n=13 vs. n=16, p=0.697). Of 131 children with a history of medical treatment or hospitalization for asthma or wheezing at study entry, 65 received LAIV and 66 received placebo. Among this subset, there was no statistical difference in PDWI occurring throughout the trial between the LAIV or placebo groups (7.7% vs. 19.7%, p=0.074). While there were no related SAEs, LAIV recipients had six unrelated SAEs and placebo recipients had none. These SAEs included three due to traumatic injury and bone fracture, and one each due to accidental overdose of paracetamol, abdominal pain, and acute gastroenteritis. None of the participants with SAEs had laboratory-confirmed influenza, wheezing illness, or other signs of acute respiratory illness at the time of their events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized, controlled trial among 300 children aged 24 through 59 months in urban Bangladesh, Russian-backbone LAIV was safe and well tolerated. Further evaluation of LAIV safety and efficacy in a larger cohort is warranted.

Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common infectious diseases in children. It has been reported that 64% of infants have an episode of AOM by the age of six months and 86% by one year. Although most cases of AOM are due to bacterial infection, it is commonly triggered by a viral infection. In most children it is self limiting, but it does carry a risk of complications. Since antibiotic treatment increases the risk of antibiotic resistance, influenza vaccines might be an effective way of reducing this risk by preventing the development of AOM.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) in infants and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 1, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to July 2014), CINAHL (1981 to July 2014), LILACS (1982 to July 2014), Web of Science (1955 to July 2014) and reference lists of articles to July 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing influenza vaccine with placebo or no treatment in infants and children aged younger than six years old. We included children of either sex and of any ethnicity, with or without a history of recurrent AOM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects and fixed-effect models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (six trials in high-income countries and four multicentre trials in high-, middle- and low-income countries) involving 16,707 children aged six months to six years. Eight trials recruited participants from a healthcare setting. Nine trials (and all five trials that contributed to the primary outcome) declared funding from vaccine manufacturers. Four trials reported adequate allocation concealment and nine trials reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel. Attrition was low for all trials included in the analysis.The primary outcome showed a small reduction in at least one episode of AOM over at least six months of follow-up (five trials, 4736 participants: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; NNTB 25, 95% CI 15 to 50).The subgroup analyses (i.e. number of courses, settings, seasons or types of vaccine administered) showed no differences.There was a reduction in the use of antibiotics in vaccinated children (two trials, 1223 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.00).There was no significant difference in the utilisation of health care for the one trial that provided sufficient information to be included. The use of influenza vaccine resulted in a significant increase in fever (six trials, 10,199 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.05) and rhinorrhoea (six trials, 10,563 children: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16) but no difference in pharyngitis. No major adverse events were reported.Compared to the protocol, the review included a subgroup analysis of AOM episodes by season, and changed the types of influenza vaccine from a secondary outcome to a subgroup analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccine results in a small reduction in AOM. The observed reduction with the use of antibiotics needs to be considered in the light of current recommended practices aimed at avoiding antibiotic overuse. Safety data from these trials are limited. The benefits may not justify the use of influenza vaccine without taking into account the vaccine efficacy in reducing influenza and safety data. The quality of the evidence was high to moderate. Additional research is needed.

Prospects of HA-based universal influenza vaccine

Current influenza vaccines afford substantial protection in humans by inducing strain-specific neutralizing antibodies (Abs). Most of these Abs target highly variable immunodominant epitopes in the globular domain of the viral hemagglutinin (HA). Therefore, current vaccines may not be able to induce heterosubtypic immunity against the divergent influenza subtypes. The identification of broadly neutralizing Abs (BnAbs) against influenza HA using recent technological advancements in antibody libraries, hybridoma, and isolation of single Ab-secreting plasma cells has increased the interest in developing a universal influenza vaccine as it could provide life-long protection. While these BnAbs can serve as a source for passive immunotherapy, their identification represents an important step towards the design of such a universal vaccine. This review describes the recent advances and approaches used in the development of universal influenza vaccine based on highly conserved HA regions identified by BnAbs.

Vaccination of children with a live-attenuated, intranasal influenza vaccine - analysis and evaluation through a Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Influenza is a worldwide prevalent infectious disease of the respiratory tract annually causing high morbidity and mortality in Germany. Influenza is preventable by vaccination and this vaccination is so far recommended by the The German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) as a standard vaccination for people from the age of 60 onwards. Up to date a parenterally administered trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) has been in use almost exclusively. Since 2011 however a live-attenuated vaccine (LAIV) has been approved additionally. Consecutively, since 2013 the STIKO recommends LAIV (besides TIV) for children from 2 to 17 years of age, within the scope of vaccination by specified indications. LAIV should be preferred administered in children from 2 to 6 of age. The objective of this Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is to address various research issues regarding the vaccination of children with LAIV. The analysis was performed from a medical, epidemiological and health economic perspective, as well as from an ethical, social and legal point of view.

METHOD

An extensive systematic database research was performed to obtain relevant information. In addition a supplementary research by hand was done. Identified literature was screened in two passes by two independent reviewers using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included literature was evaluated in full-text using acknowledged standards. Studies were graded with the highest level of evidence (1++), if they met the criteria of European Medicines Agency (EMA)-Guidance: Points to consider on applications with 1. meta-analyses; 2. one pivotal study.

RESULTS

For the medical section, the age of the study participants ranges from 6 months to 17 years. Regarding study efficacy, in children aged 6 months to ≤7 years, LAIV is superior to placebo as well as to a vac-cination with TIV (Relative Risk Reduction - RRR - of laboratory confirmed influenza infection approx. 80% and 50%, respectively). In children aged >7 to 17 years (= 18th year of their lives), LAIV is superior to a vaccination with TIV (RRR 32%). For this age group, no studies that compared LAIV with placebo were identified. It can be concluded that there is high evidence for superior efficacy of LAIV (compared to placebo or TIV) among children aged 6 months to ≤7 years. For children from >7 to 17 years, there is moderate evidence for superiority of LAIV for children with asthma, while direct evidence for children from the general population is lacking for this age group. Due to the efficacy of LAIV in children aged 6 months to ≤7 years (high evidence) and the efficacy of LAIV in children with asthma aged >7 to 17 years (moderate evidence), LAIV is also very likely to be efficacious among children in the general population aged >7 to 17 years (indirect evidence). In the included studies with children aged 2 to 17 years, LAIV was safe and well-tolerated; while in younger children LAIV may increase the risk of obstruction of the airways (e.g. wheezing). In the majority of the evaluated epidemiological studies, LAIV proved to be effective in the prevention of influenza among children aged 2-17 years under everyday conditions (effectiveness). The trend appears to indicate that LAIV is more effective than TIV, although this can only be based on limited evidence for methodological reasons (observational studies). In addition to a direct protective effect for vaccinated children themselves, indirect protective ("herd protection") effects were reported among non-vaccinated elderly population groups, even at relatively low vaccination coverage of children. With regard to safety, LAIV generally can be considered equivalent to TIV. This also applies to the use among children with mild chronically obstructive conditions, from whom LAIV therefore does not have to be withheld. In all included epidemiological studies, there was some risk of bias identified, e.g. due to residual confounding or other methodology-related sources of error. In the evaluated studies, both the vaccination of children with previous illnesses and the routine vaccination of (healthy) children frequently involve cost savings. This is especially the case if one includes indirect costs from a societal perspective. From a payer perspective, a routine vaccination of children is often regarded as a highly cost-effective intervention. However, not all of the studies arrive at consistent results. In isolated cases, relatively high levels of cost-effectiveness are reported that make it difficult to perform a conclusive assessment from an economic perspective. Based on the included studies, it is not possible to make a clear statement about the budget impact of using LAIV. None of the evaluated studies provides results for the context of the German healthcare setting. The efficacy of the vaccine, physicians' recommendations, and a potential reduction in influenza symptoms appear to play a role in the vaccination decision taken by parents/custodians on behalf of their children. Major barriers to the utilization of influenza vaccination services are a low level of perception and an underestimation of the disease risk, reservations concerning the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and potential side effects of the vaccine. For some of the parents surveyed, the question as to whether the vaccine is administered as an injection or nasal spray might also be important.

CONCLUSION

In children aged 2 to 17 years, the use of LAIV can lead to a reduction of the number of influenza cases and the associated burden of disease. In addition, indirect preventive effects may be expected, especially among elderly age groups. Currently there are no data available for the German healthcare setting. Long-term direct and indirect effectiveness and safety should be supported by surveillance programs with a broader use of LAIV. Since there is no general model available for the German healthcare setting, statements concerning the cost-effectiveness can be made only with precaution. Beside this there is a need to conduct health eco-nomic studies to show the impact of influenza vaccination for children in Germany. Such studies should be based on a dynamic transmission model. Only these models are able to include the indirect protective effects of vaccination correctly. With regard to ethical, social and legal aspects, physicians should discuss with parents the motivations for vaccinating their children and upcoming barriers in order to achieve broader vaccination coverage. The present HTA provides an extensive basis for further scientific approaches and pending decisions relating to health policy.

New Wisdom to Defy an Old Enemy: Summary from a scientific symposium at the 4th Influenza Vaccines for the World (IVW) 2012 Congress, 11 October, Valencia, Spain

Both seasonal and pandemic influenza cause considerable morbidity and mortality globally. In addition, the ongoing threat of new, unpredictable influenza pandemics from emerging variant strains cannot be underestimated. Recently bioCSL (previously known as CSL Biotherapies) sponsored a symposium 'New Wisdom to Defy an Old Enemy' at the 4th Influenza Vaccines for the World Congress in Valencia, Spain. This symposium brought together a renowned faculty of experts to discuss lessons from past experience, novel influenza vaccine developments, and new methods to increase vaccine acceptance and coverage. Specific topics reviewed and discussed included new vaccine development efforts focused on improving efficacy via alternative administration routes, dose modifications, improved adjuvants, and the use of master donor viruses. Improved safety was also discussed, particularly the new finding of an excess of febrile reactions isolated to children who received the 2010 Southern Hemisphere (SH) trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV). Significant work has been done to both identify the cause and minimize the risk of febrile reactions in children. Other novel prophylactic and therapeutic advances were discussed including immunotherapy. Standard IVIg and hIVIg have been used in ferret studies and human case reports with promising results. New adjuvants, such as ISCOMATRIX™ adjuvant, were noted to provide single-dose, prolonged protection with seasonal vaccine after lethal H5N1 virus challenge in a ferret model of human influenza disease. The data suggest that adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines may provide broader protection than unadjuvanted vaccines. The use of an antigen-formulated vaccine to induce broad protection between pandemics that could bridge the gap between pandemic declaration and the production of a homologous vaccine was also discussed. Finally, despite the availability of effective vaccines, most current efforts to increase influenza vaccine coverage rates to higher levels (i.e., above 70-80%) have been ineffective in highly developed countries where the vaccine is used, hindered by the public's skepticism towards vaccines in general. New educational and social media methods to increase vaccine acceptance and coverage were discussed. While the first priority should be the development of improved influenza vaccines, a particular focus on the aging global population is critical. It is also important to draw lessons from other academic disciplines that can help to inform vaccine education programs, policy, and communication. By tailoring communications and patient education using an understanding of cognitive bias and the model of preferred cognitive styles, the likelihood of effecting desirable health decisions can be maximized, leading to improved vaccine coverage and control of influenza and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Prospects for a vaccine against otitis media

Otitis media is a major cause of morbidity in 80% of all children less than 3 years of age and often goes undiagnosed in the general population. There is evidence to suggest that the incidence of otitis media is increasing. The major cause of otitis media is infection of the middle ear with microbes from the nasopharynx. The anatomical orientation of the eustachian tube, in association with a number of risk factors, predisposes infants and young children to the infection. Bacteria are responsible for approximately 70% of cases of acute otitis media, with Streptococcus pneumoniae, nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis predominating as the causative agents. The respiratory viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus, parainfluenza and influenza, account for 30% of acute otitis media cases. Over the past decade, there has been a profound increase in the reported resistance to antibiotics, which, with increased disease burden, has focussed attention on vaccine development for otitis media. A polymicrobial formulation containing antigens from all major pathogens would have the greatest potential to deliver a sustained reduction in the disease burden globally. The disappointing outcomes for otitis media seen with the polysaccharide pneumococcal conjugate vaccine have raised major challenges for the vaccination strategy. Clearly, more knowledge is required concerning immune mechanisms in the middle ear, as well as vaccine formulations containing antigens that are more representative of the polymicrobial nature of the disease. Antigens that have been extensively tested in animal models are now available for testing in human subjects.

New vaccines against influenza virus

Vaccination is one of the most effective and cost-benefit interventions that prevent the mortality and reduce morbidity from infectious pathogens. However, the licensed influenza vaccine induces strain-specific immunity and must be updated annually based on predicted strains that will circulate in the upcoming season. Influenza virus still causes significant health problems worldwide due to the low vaccine efficacy from unexpected outbreaks of next epidemic strains or the emergence of pandemic viruses. Current influenza vaccines are based on immunity to the hemagglutinin antigen that is highly variable among different influenza viruses circulating in humans and animals. Several scientific advances have been endeavored to develop universal vaccines that will induce broad protection. Universal vaccines have been focused on regions of viral proteins that are highly conserved across different virus subtypes. The strategies of universal vaccines include the matrix 2 protein, the hemagglutinin HA2 stalk domain, and T cell-based multivalent antigens. Supplemented and/or adjuvanted vaccination in combination with universal target antigenic vaccines would have much promise. This review summarizes encouraging scientific advances in the field with a focus on novel vaccine designs.

Assessing the safety of influenza vaccination in specific populations: children and the elderly

Comprehensive monitoring of the safety of influenza vaccines remains a public health priority, particularly as immunization coverage increases across different age groups at the global level. In this review, the authors provide state-of-the-art knowledge on the safety of influenza immunization among children and the elderly. The authors review the safety information in each group separately for inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines. Adverse events of special concern including febrile seizure, narcolepsy, asthma and Guillain-Barré syndrome are covered under specific considerations. The authors discuss the current status of the field, particularly the use of new technologies for influenza vaccines and their potential safety profile.

A postlicensure evaluation of the safety of Ann Arbor strain live attenuated influenza vaccine in children 24-59 months of age

BACKGROUND

In the United States, live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was initially approved for use in individuals aged 5-49 years in 2003, which was extended to individuals aged 2-49 years in 2007. At that time, a postlicensure commitment was made to describe the safety of LAIV within a cohort of eligible children aged 2-5 years.

METHODS

A prospective observational postmarketing study was conducted to evaluate the safety of LAIV. Rates of medically attended events (MAEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) in eligible children aged 24-59 months receiving LAIV as part of routine care from October 2007 to March 2010 were compared with rates in a within-cohort self-control, as well as matched unvaccinated and matched trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV)-vaccinated controls. Children with asthma and other high-risk medical conditions before vaccination were excluded. All MAEs and SAEs through 42 days postvaccination and all hospitalizations and deaths through 6 months postvaccination were analyzed. Statistical significance was declared without multiplicity adjustment.

RESULTS

A total of 28,226 unique LAIV recipients were matched with similar numbers of TIV-vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Of 4696 MAE incidence rate comparisons, 83 (1.8%) were statistically significantly higher and 221 (4.7%) were statistically significantly lower in LAIV recipients versus controls. No pattern of MAE rate differences suggested a safety signal with LAIV. Asthma/wheezing MAEs were not statistically increased in LAIV recipients. No anaphylaxis events occurred within 3 days postvaccination. Rates of SAEs were similar between LAIV and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this postlicensure evaluation of LAIV safety in US children are consistent with preapproval clinical studies and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System reports, both of which demonstrated no significant increase in asthma/wheezing events or other adverse outcomes among eligible children aged 24-59 months who received LAIV.

Safety of influenza vaccines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent publications on the safety of influenza vaccines [both the injectable, inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) and the intranasal, live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV)] and new recommendations regarding their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous studies have demonstrated that TIV can be safely administered to patients with egg allergy. Influenza vaccines are very unlikely to cause or exacerbate Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). TIV cannot cause asthma exacerbations, whereas there may be some slight risk that LAIV could do so. TIV is well tolerated by patients with immunocompromise. Some brands of influenza vaccine are not indicated for certain age groups due to lack of effectiveness or possible side effects.

SUMMARY

TIV should be administered to patients with egg allergy with appropriate precautions. Influenza vaccines should be withheld from patients with a history of GBS only if the GBS began within 6 weeks of prior influenza immunization. TIV should be given to patients with asthma, but they should not receive LAIV. TIV should be given to immunocompromised patients, but they should not receive LAIV. Contacts of most immunocompromised patients can receive either TIV or LAIV. Age appropriate brands of influenza vaccine should be used.

Microneedle and mucosal delivery of influenza vaccines

In recent years with the threat of pandemic influenza and other public health needs, alternative vaccination methods other than intramuscular immunization have received great attention. The skin and mucosal surfaces are attractive sites probably because of both noninvasive access to the vaccine delivery and unique immunological responses. Intradermal vaccines using a microinjection system (BD Soluvia(TM)) and intranasal vaccines (FluMist®) are licensed. As a new vaccination method, solid microneedles have been developed using a simple device that may be suitable for self-administration. Because coated microneedle influenza vaccines are administered in the solid state, developing formulations maintaining the stability of influenza vaccines is an important issue to be considered. Marketable microneedle devices and clinical trials remain to be developed. Other alternative mucosal routes such as oral and intranasal delivery systems are also attractive for inducing cross-protective mucosal immunity, but effective non-live mucosal vaccines remain to be developed.

Immunogenicity of a quadrivalent Ann Arbor strain live attenuated influenza vaccine delivered using a blow-fill-seal device in adults: a randomized, active-controlled study*

BACKGROUND

Influenza B strains from two distinct lineages (Yamagata and Victoria) have cocirculated over recent years. Current seasonal vaccines contain a single B lineage resulting in frequent mismatches between the vaccine strain and the circulating strain. An Ann Arbor strain quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (Q/LAIV) containing B strains from both lineages is being developed to address this issue.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether Q/LAIV administered intranasally as a single dose to a single nostril, using a blow-fill-seal (BFS) delivery system had a similar immunogenicity and safety profile compared with the licensed trivalent vaccine delivered using the Accuspray device.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Adults aged 18-49 years were randomized to receive one intranasal dose of Q/LAIV delivered using a BFS device (Q/LAIV-BFS; n=1202) or one of two trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccines (T/LAIV) containing one of the corresponding B strains (total T/LAIV, n=598). Primary endpoints were the post-vaccination strain-specific serum hemagglutination inhibition antibody geometric mean titers for each strain. Secondary immunogenicity endpoints, safety, and acceptability of the BFS device were also assessed.

RESULTS

Q/LAIV was immunogenically non-inferior to T/LAIV for all four influenza strains. Secondary immunogenicity outcomes were consistent with the primary endpoint. Solicited symptoms and AEs were comparable in both groups. Subjects considered the BFS device to be acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Immune responses to vaccination with Ann Arbor strain Q/LAIV-BFS were non-inferior to those with T/LAIV. Q/LAIV may confer broader protection against seasonal influenza B by targeting both major influenza B lineages.

Efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination in children with asthma

The mean global prevalence of asthma among children is approximately 12%, making it the most common chronic disease in children. Influenza infection has been associated with complications such as exacerbations of wheezing and asthma, increased airway hyper-reactivity and hospitalization. Although influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients by all health authorities, vaccination coverage remains significantly lower than expected and is lowest of all in children. Compliance is affected by the uncertainty of parents and physicians concerning the clinical risk of influenza in asthmatic subjects, the benefits of influenza vaccination in preventing asthma exacerbations and the safety of immunization. The aim of this review is to analyze the rationale for using influenza vaccine, discuss the relationship between influenza and the severity of asthmatic episodes and document the efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination in the pediatric asthmatic population.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people over 65 years of age.

OBJECTIVES

To appraise all comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in healthy children, assess vaccine efficacy (prevention of confirmed influenza) and effectiveness (prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI)) and document adverse events associated with influenza vaccines.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, OLD MEDLINE (1950 to 1965), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2011), EMBASE (1974 to November 2011), Biological Abstracts (1969 to September 2007), and Science Citation Index (1974 to September 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies of any influenza vaccine in healthy children under 16 years of age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies with about 300,000 observations. We included 17 RCTs, 19 cohort studies and 11 case-control studies in the analysis of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Evidence from RCTs shows that six children under the age of six need to be vaccinated with live attenuated vaccine to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). We could find no usable data for those aged two years or younger.Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo. Twenty-eight children over the age of six need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). Eight need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza-like-illness (ILI). We could find no evidence of effect on secondary cases, lower respiratory tract disease, drug prescriptions, otitis media and its consequences and socioeconomic impact. We found weak single-study evidence of effect on school absenteeism by children and caring parents from work. Variability in study design and presentation of data was such that a meta-analysis of safety outcome data was not feasible. Extensive evidence of reporting bias of safety outcomes from trials of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) impeded meaningful analysis. One specific brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine is associated with cataplexy and narcolepsy in children and there is sparse evidence of serious harms (such as febrile convulsions) in specific situations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age. There was a difference between vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, partly due to differing datasets, settings and viral circulation patterns. No safety comparisons could be carried out, emphasising the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies. In specific cases, influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required. The degree of scrutiny needed to identify all global cases of potential harms is beyond the resources of this review. This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (Fluenz™): a guide to its use in the prevention of seasonal influenza in children in the EU

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV).[Fluenz™] has a convenient intranasal route of administration. In the EU, it is indicated for the prevention of influenza disease caused by the influenza virus strains contained in the vaccine in children and adolescents aged 2 years to <18 years. The vaccine elicits a high immunogenic response, is protective against seasonal influenza infection and is associated with the development of herd immunity. LAIV is generally well tolerated, with the safety of the vaccine in the approved pediatric population generally considered to be similar to that of placebo based on clinical trials and extensive experience involving more than 39 million vaccine doses.