Impaired antibody response to influenza vaccine in institutionalized elderly

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. 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 the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 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 (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

Return of inactivated whole-virus vaccine for superior efficacy

The swine, influenza, H1N1 outbreak in 2009 highlighted the inadequacy of the currently used antibody-based vaccine strategies as a preventive measure for combating influenza pandemics. The ultimate goal for successful control of newly arising influenza outbreaks is to design a single-shot vaccine that will provide long-lasting immunity against all strains of influenza A virus. A large amount of data from animal studies has indicated that the cross-reactive cytotoxic T (Tc) cell response against conserved influenza virus epitopes may be the key immune response needed for a universal influenza vaccine. However, decades of research have shown that the development of safe T-cell-based vaccines for influenza is not an easy task. Here, I discuss the overlooked but potentially highly advantageous inactivation method, namely, γ-ray irradiation, as a mean to reach the Holy Grail of influenza vaccinology.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, complications and mortality in the elderly. To identify and appraise comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in the elderly. To document types and frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in the elderly.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October Week 1 2009); EMBASE (1974 to October 2009) and Web of Science (1974 to October 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies. Overall we identified 100 data sets. We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness. Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants). The remainder of our evidence base included non-RCTs. Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.

Rapid decline of influenza vaccine-induced antibody in the elderly: is it real, or is it relevant?

Advisory committees have cautioned that influenza vaccine-induced antibody declines more rapidly in the elderly, falling below seroprotective levels within 4 months. We conducted a literature review to assess this assertion. The articles that were included in this review reported antibody levels > or =4 months after influenza immunization in persons > or =60 years old, interpretable in the context of annual influenza vaccine-approval criteria (seroprotection/seroconversion) specified by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) for the elderly. The final review included 14 studies; 8 of which reported seroprotection rates. Seroprotection exceeding CPMP criteria was maintained > or =4 months after influenza immunization in all 8 of the studies reporting this for the H3N2 component and in 5 of the 7 studies reporting this for the H1N1 and B components. In determining whether CPMP criteria were met at season's end, primary antibody response appeared to be more relevant than secondary antibody decline. Both studies reporting seroprotection rates that failed CPMP criteria > or =4 months after influenza immunization for each of the H1N1 and B components had also reported failed seroprotection at 1 month after immunization. If initially achieved after immunization, seroprotection rates of 70%-100% were maintained not just at 4 months (2 studies) but also at 5 months (2 studies) and even at >6 months (4 studies), for the H3N2 and H1N1 vaccine components. Seroprotection rates appeared less consistent for the B vaccine component, throughout the postimmunization period. Seroconversion appears to vary substantially and inversely with preimmunization titers but not with age. In 2 of 6 studies reporting seroconversion alone, CPMP criteria were still met at 4 months. In the other 4 studies, the main reason for failure at 4 months was primary failure at 1 month. A total of 6 studies compared antibody persistence by age, and no consistent differences were found on that basis. The historic concern that the influenza vaccine-induced antibody response in the elderly declines more rapidly and below seroprotective levels within 4 months of immunization should be reconsidered.

A single intranasal immunization with inactivated influenza virus and α-galactosylceramide induces long-term protective immunity without redirecting antigen to the central nervous system

alpha-Galactosylceramide (alpha-GalCer), originally isolated from a marine sponge, was known to activate natural killer T (NKT) cells through CD1d-mediated Ag presentation and induce Th1 and/or Th2 immunity. In this study, we evaluated the nasal adjuvanticity of alpha-GalCer when co-administered with formalin-inactivated influenza virus A/PR/8/34 (PR8) in BALB/c mice. A single nasal immunization of inactivated PR8 and alpha-GalCer induced brisk levels of PR8-specific IgG and IgA Abs in serum and lung washes. Antigen-specific Ab responses lasted for 3 months, providing protective immunity against challenge with live PR8. In addition, mice given alpha-GalCer also exhibited cellular immune responses including cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) generation. Because it did not redirect Ags into brain, alpha-GalCer would likely pose no risk if administered as a nasal adjuvant. These results suggest for the first time that a single nasal immunization of inactivated virus and alpha-GalCer is a safe and effective means of preventing influenza infection.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination of elderly individuals is recommended worldwide and has been targeted toward the elderly and those at serious risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to review the evidence of efficacy, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccines in individuals aged 65 years or older.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases on The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (Issue 1, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1966 to March Week 3 2006); EMBASE (Dialog 1974 to 1979; SilverPlatter 1980 to December 2005); Biological Abstracts (SilverPlatter 1969 to December 2004); and Science Citation Index (Web of Science 1974 to December 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised, quasi-randomised, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-four studies were included in the efficacy / effectiveness assessment, resulting in 96 data sets. In homes for elderly individuals (with good vaccine match and high viral circulation) the effectiveness of vaccines against ILI was 23% (6% to 36%) and non-significant against influenza (RR 1.04: 95% CI 0.43 to 2.51). We found no correlation between vaccine coverage and ILI attack rate. Well matched vaccines prevented pneumonia (VE 46%; 30% to 58%), hospital admission (VE 45%; 16% to 64%) and deaths from influenza or pneumonia (VE 42%, 17% to 59%). In elderly individuals living in the community, vaccines were not significantly effective against influenza (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.01), ILI (RR 1.05: 95% CI 0.58 to 1.89), or pneumonia (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.20). Well matched vaccines prevented hospital admission for influenza and pneumonia (VE 26%; 12% to 38%) and all-cause mortality (VE 42%; 24% to 55%). After adjustment for confounders, vaccine performance was improved for admissions to hospital for influenza or pneumonia (VE* 27%; 21% to 33%), respiratory diseases (VE* 22%; 15% to 28%) and cardiac disease (VE* 24%; 18% to 30%); and for all-cause mortality (VE* 47%; 39% to 54%). The public health safety profiles of the vaccines appear to be acceptable.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In long-term care facilities, where vaccination is most effective against complications, the aims of the vaccination campaign are fulfilled, at least in part. However, according to reliable evidence the usefulness of vaccines in the community is modest. The apparent high effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing death from all causes may reflect a baseline imbalance in health status and other systematic differences in the two groups of participants.

The virosome concept for influenza vaccines

There is a need for more efficacious inactivated influenza vaccines, since current formulations show suboptimal immunogenicity in at-risk populations, like the elderly. More effective vaccines are also urgently needed for an improved influenza pandemic preparedness. In this context, there is considerable interest in virosomes. Virosomes are virus-like particles, consisting of reconstituted influenza virus envelopes, lacking the genetic material of the native virus. Virosomes are produced from influenza virus through a detergent solubilization and removal procedure. Properly reconstituted virosomes retain the cell binding and membrane fusion properties of the native virus, mediated by the viral envelope glycoprotein haemagglutinin. These functional characteristics of virosomes form the basis for their enhanced immunogenicity. First, the repetitive arrangement of haemagglutinin molecules on the virosomal surface mediates a cooperative interaction of the antigen with Ig receptors on B lymphocytes, stimulating strong antibody responses. In addition, virosomes interact efficiently with antigen-presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, resulting in activation of T lymphocytes. In a murine model system, virosomes, as compared to conventional subunit vaccine, which consists of isolated influenza envelope glycoproteins, induce a more balanced T helper 1 versus T helper 2 response, virosomes in particular eliciting stronger T helper 1 responses than subunit vaccine. Also, as a result of fusion of the virosomes with the endosomal membrane, part of the virosomal antigen gains access to the major histocompatibility class I presentation pathway, thus priming cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity. Finally, virosomes represent an excellent platform for inclusion of lipophilic adjuvants for further stimulation of vaccine immunogenicity. By virtue of these characteristics, virosomes represent a promising novel class of inactivated influenza vaccines, which not only induce high virus-neutralizing antibody titres, but also prime the cellular arm of the immune system.

Influenza Vaccination in the Elderly

Influenza causes substantial morbidity across the age spectrum. However, the elderly are especially vulnerable to the serious complications of influenza that might result in hospitalisation or death, and high rates of influenza-associated excess hospitalisation or death that exceed by several-fold the rates seen among most other age groups have consistently been observed in many countries and across many seasons. Thus, the elderly are included among the high priority groups for routine influenza vaccination by many national health authorities. Inactivated influenza virus vaccines are widely available across the globe and are safe and effective. Vaccination of elderly persons has been associated with significant reductions in hospitalisations for pneumonia and influenza as well as hospitalisations for other cardiopulmonary disorders and even cerebrovascular disease. Vaccination has also been associated with reductions in influenza-associated and all-cause mortality during influenza seasons. The benefits of vaccination extend not only to community-dwelling elderly but also to elderly who reside in nursing homes. Likewise, vaccination provides benefits to the very old and to elderly persons with underlying co-morbidities as well as to the healthy elderly. Despite the substantially increased risk for serious complications and impressive benefits from vaccination among the elderly, influenza vaccine utilisation remains below target rates for this group in nearly all countries. The need for improved prevention and control of influenza is recognised as a priority for the global community--both to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with epidemic influenza and to prepare for the next pandemic. Enhancing vaccine delivery to elderly persons would represent important progress toward that goal.

Response to influenza vaccination in community and in nursing home residing elderly: relation to clinical factors

Intramuscular (IM) influenza vaccines are about 50% effective in preventing respiratory illness among the elderly. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with immune response to influenza vaccination among nursing home and community-residing elderly. 114 nursing home (NHE) and 62 community residing elderly (CE) were vaccinated with a commercial IM vaccine. Serum antibodies were evaluated by HIA, and the impact of subjects' clinical characteristics on seroconversion was determined. Factors that were associated with low seroconversion among NHE, included: type II diabetes [for B/Harbin: p=0.044, OR 0.12, (CI: 0.015-0.94)], and antibody titer prior to vaccination A/(H1N1): p=0.03, OR 2.38, (CI: 1.09-5.22); A/(H3N2): p=0.015, OR 2.68 (CI: 1.22-5.92), B/Harbin: p=0.057, OR 4.46 (CI: 0.96-20.85)]. Factors that were associated with lower seroconversion CE elderly, included older age [A/(H1N1): p=0.008, OR 0.846, (CI 0.75-0.96), B/Harbin: p=0.016, OR 0.812, (CI:0.69-0.96)], and antibody titer prior to vaccination A/(H1N1): p=0.029, OR 4.08, (CI: 1.16-14.37); A/(H3N2): p<0.0001, OR 11.495 (CI: 3.18-41.55)]. There was no significant difference in seroconversion between nursing home residing elderly and community elderly. We conclude that Type-II diabetes and antibody titer>1:40 prior to vaccination are associated with reduced response to the influenza vaccination in nursing home elderly.

Local and systemic immune response in nursing-home elderly following intranasal or intramuscular immunization with inactivated influenza vaccine

Intramuscular (IM) influenza vaccines are only 30-40% effective in preventing clinical illness among the elderly, and their effectiveness in eliciting mucosal response may be even lower. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the immunological effect of a novel inactivated intranasal (IN) trivalent whole influenza virus vaccine among nursing-home elderly. Twenty-one institutionalized elderly subjects were vaccinated IN with an inactivated novel vaccine, twice, 21 days apart, and with no adverse effects. Twenty-two subjects were vaccinated once with a commercial IM vaccine. Viral strains used in the 1998/9 vaccine (20 microg of each per dose) were A/Beijing/262/95, A/Sydney/5/97 and B/Harbin/7/94. Serum antibodies (IgG and IgM) and nasal IgA were determined by the hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), respectively. Mucosal antibody response to the three vaccine strains was detected in 47.6-71.4% and 18.1-31.8% of IN and IM immunized subjects, respectively. Serum antibody response to the three antigens tested was detected in 20.0-61.9% and 18.2-72.7% of IN and IM immunized subjects, respectively. Seroconversion was not significantly different after IN or IM vaccination for both A/Sydney and B/Harbin, but higher for A/Beijing following IM vaccination. On study completion, 57.1, 65.0 and 50.0% of IN vaccinees were seroprotected to A/Beijing, A/Sydney and B/Harbin, respectively. Similarly, 68.1, 77.2 and 54.5% were immune after IM vaccination. The IN vaccine tested was significantly more effective than the IM vaccine in inducing mucosal IgA response. This may prevent influenza at its early stages and thus contribute to the reduction of morbidity and complications in nursing-home elderly.

Immune responses and protection in different strains of aged mice immunized intranasally with an adjuvant-combined influenza vaccine

Immune responses and protection against influenza virus infection were compared between young (2 months) and aged (18 months) BALB/c, C3H and C57BL/6 (B6) mice after intranasal vaccination. The mice were immunized with 2.5 microg protein of A/PR/8/34 (PR8) (H1N1) virus vaccine containing a cholera toxin adjuvant. In both the young and aged BALB/c mice, high levels of PR8-specific antibody-forming cell (AFC) responses were induced in the nasal-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT) 7 days after immunization. Nasal wash IgA and serum IgG antibody (Ab) responses to the PR8 haemagglutinin (HA) 4 weeks after immunization were slightly higher in the young mice than in the aged mice. The young mice showed complete protection against challenge infection, while the aged mice showed only a partial protection. In the C3H mice, NALT-AFC, and IgA and IgG Ab responses were higher in the young mice than those in the aged mice in parallel with the more efficient protection in the young mice than in the aged mice. Both the young and aged B6 mice showed no NALT-AFC responses, scarce IgA and IgG Ab responses and no protection. In the BALB/c mice, IgG1 and IgG2a levels were significantly lower in the aged mice. On the other hand, in the C3H mice, only IgG2a level was significantly lower in the aged mice. Similar results were obtained in terms of immune responses and protection between the young and aged mice of three different strains of mice after intra-nasal immunization with 0.1 microg of PR8 vaccine containing the adjuvant, two-times at 4-week intervals. In the B6 mice, the immune response was improved by immunization with a higher dose of the adjuvant-combined vaccine. These results suggest that local Ab responses, as well as systemic Ab responses, are downregulated in aged mice, although the degree of the downregulation of immune responses differs from strain to strain.

Immunogenicity and safety of three commercial influenza vaccines in institutionalized elderly

Influenza is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in elderly people. This prospective, observed-blind, randomized, multicenter trial compares the immunogenicity and safety of three influenza vaccines in a sample of 635 elderly residents of four nursing homes in Milano (Italy). All vaccines were well tolerated: no serious adverse events were recorded, and a small number (9 subjects) of local and systemic reactions were observed. Twenty-nine oropharyngeal swabs were taken during the season from ILI (influenza-like illness) patients, none of whom was positive for influenza and other respiratory viruses. Immunogenicity was evaluated in a subgroup of 111 subjects with blood samples obtained just before vaccination and after 4 and 12 weeks. The adjuvanted vaccines, subunit vaccine with MF59 (a-SUV) and virosome subunit vaccine (v-SUV), induced a higher antibody response than whole virus vaccine (WVV). There was no significant difference between groups that received a-SUV and v-SUV, but the a-SUV group had higher values of geometric mean titres than the v-SUV group for H1N1 and B influenza strains. These findings suggest that influenza vaccination is effective, and they underscore the importance of vaccination programs for institutionalized elderly. Further studies are needed to compare other adjuvanted vaccines in order to define their different properties.

Efficacy of anti-influenza peptide vaccine in aged mice

Influenza infections may cause serious morbidity, as well as mortality in the elderly. In the present study we vaccinated old and young mice of two strains with three synthetic recombinant constructs (Levi and Arnon, 1995. In: Chanock, R.M. et al. (Eds.), Vaccines 95. CSHL Press, New York, pp. 311-316) and examined their capacity to eliminate a challenge of virus. Virus clearance from the lungs in the aged was very efficient, although the immune response in the aged was comparatively reduced. The data demonstrate that an intranasal administration of peptide-based anti-influenza vaccine without any adjuvant can be efficient and protective in old mice. Further studies are needed to determine whether such constructs will provide an effective vaccine for elderly human subjects.