Safety and immunogenicity of concurrent administration of live attenuated influenza vaccine with measles-mumps-rubella and varicella vaccines to infants 12 to 15 months of age

Timing and sequence of vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza (TACTIC): a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

Background

Novel mRNA-based vaccines have been used to protect against SARS-CoV-2, especially in vulnerable populations who also receive an annual influenza vaccination. The TACTIC study investigated potential immune interference between the mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine and the quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and determined if concurrent administration would have effects on safety or immunogenicity.

Methods

TACTIC was a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted at the Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands. Individuals ≥60 years, fully vaccinated against COVID-19 were eligible for participation and randomized into one of four study groups: 1) 0.5 ml influenza vaccination Vaxigrip Tetra followed by 0.3 ml BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccination 21 days later, (2) COVID-19 booster vaccination followed by influenza vaccination, (3) influenza vaccination concurrent with the COVID-19 booster vaccination, and (4) COVID-19 booster vaccination only (reference group). Primary outcome was the geometric mean concentration (GMC) of IgG against the spike (S)-protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, 21 days after booster vaccination. We performed a non-inferiority analysis of concurrent administration compared to booster vaccines alone with a predefined non-inferiority margin of -0.3 on the log10-scale.

Findings

154 individuals participated from October, 4, 2021, until November, 5, 2021. Anti-S IgG GMCs for the co-administration and reference group were 1684 BAU/ml and 2435 BAU/ml, respectively. Concurrent vaccination did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (estimate -0.1791, 95% CI -0.3680 to -0.009831) and antibodies showed significantly lower neutralization capacity compared to the reference group. Reported side-effects were mild and did not differ between study groups.

Interpretation

Concurrent administration of both vaccines is safe, but the quantitative and functional antibody responses were marginally lower compared to booster vaccination alone. Lower protection against COVID-19 with concurrent administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination cannot be excluded, although additional larger studies would be required to confirm this.

Trial registration number

EudraCT: 2021-002186-17.

Funding

The study was supported by the ZonMw COVID-19 Programme.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022-23 Influenza Season

This report updates the 2021–22 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States

(MMWR Recomm Rep 2021;70[No. RR-5]:1–24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used.With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2022–23 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Trivalent influenza vaccines are no longer available, but data that involve these vaccines are included for reference.

Influenza vaccines might be available as early as July or August, but for most persons who need only 1 dose of influenza vaccine for the season, vaccination should ideally be offered during September or October. However, vaccination should continue after October and throughout the season as long as influenza viruses are circulating and unexpired vaccine is available. For most adults (particularly adults aged ≥65 years) and for pregnant persons in the first or second trimester, vaccination during July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that vaccination later in the season might not be possible. Certain children aged 6 months through 8 years need 2 doses; these children should receive the first dose as soon as possible after vaccine is available, including during July and August. Vaccination during July and August can be considered for children of any age who need only 1 dose for the season and for pregnant persons who are in the third trimester if vaccine is available during those months

Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 20, 2021; January 12, 2022; February 23, 2022; and June 22, 2022. Primary updates to this report include the following three topics: 1) the composition of 2022–23 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines; 2) updates to the description of influenza vaccines expected to be available for the 2022–23 season, including one influenza vaccine labeling change that occurred after the publication of the 2021–22 ACIP influenza recommendations; and 3) updates to the recommendations concerning vaccination of adults aged ≥65 years. First, the composition of 2022–23 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H3N2) and influenza B/Victoria lineage components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based or recombinant vaccines); an influenza A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Darwin/6/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture–based or recombinant vaccines); an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus; and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Second, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), was changed in October 2021 from ≥2 years to ≥6 months. Third, recommendations for vaccination of adults aged ≥65 years have been modified. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: quadrivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV4), quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), or quadrivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV4). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used

This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2022–23 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

Prevention of measles, mumps and rubella: 40 years of global experience with M-M-RII

Measles, mumps, and rubella are highly contagious diseases that caused significant global mortality and morbidity in the pre-vaccine era. Since its first approval in the United States over 40 years ago, M-M-R_II has been used in >75 countries for prevention of these diseases. The vaccine has been part of immunization programs that have achieved dramatic global reductions in case numbers and mortality rates, as well as the elimination of measles and rubella in several countries and regions. This report summarizes over four decades of global safety, immunogenicity, efficacy, and effectiveness data for the vaccine. We include studies on the use of M-M-R_II in different age groups, concomitant use with other routine childhood vaccines, administration via different routes, persistence of immunity, and vaccine effectiveness during outbreaks of measles and mumps. We conclude that M-M-R_II is well tolerated and has shown consistently high performance during routine use in multiple countries, in randomized controlled trials with diverse designs, and in outbreak settings, including use as measles postexposure prophylaxis. Physicians, parents, and the public can continue to have a high degree of confidence in the use of M-M-R_II as a vital part of global public health programs.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2021-22 Influenza Season

This report updates the 2020–21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021–22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).

The 2021–22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021–22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021–22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4.

This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021–22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2019-20 Influenza Season

This report updates the 2018–19 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2018;67[No. RR-3]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. A licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) are expected to be available for the 2019–20 season. Standard-dose, unadjuvanted, inactivated influenza vaccines will be available in quadrivalent formulations (IIV4s). High-dose (HD-IIV3) and adjuvanted (aIIV3) inactivated influenza vaccines will be available in trivalent formulations. Recombinant (RIV4) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) will be available in quadrivalent formulations.

Updates to the recommendations described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 25, 2018; February 27, 2019; and June 27, 2019. Primary updates in this report include the following two items. First, 2019–20 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin (HA) derived from an A/Brisbane/02/2018 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Kansas/14/2017 (H3N2)–like virus, and a B/Colorado/06/2017–like virus (Victoria lineage). Quadrivalent influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from these three viruses, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013–like virus (Yamagata lineage). Second, recent labeling changes for two IIV4s, Afluria Quadrivalent and Fluzone Quadrivalent, are discussed. The age indication for Afluria Quadrivalent has been expanded from ≥5 years to ≥6 months. The dose volume for Afluria Quadrivalent is 0.25 mL for children aged 6 through 35 months and 0.5 mL for all persons aged ≥36 months (≥3 years). The dose volume for Fluzone Quadrivalent for children aged 6 through 35 months, which was previously 0.25 mL, is now either 0.25 mL or 0.5 mL. The dose volume for Fluzone Quadrivalent is 0.5 mL for all persons aged ≥36 months (≥3 years).

This report focuses on the recommendations for use of vaccines for the prevention and control of influenza during the 2019–20 season in the United States. A brief summary of these recommendations and a Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

Repeat vaccination reduces antibody affinity maturation across different influenza vaccine platforms in humans

Several vaccines are approved in the United States for seasonal influenza vaccination every year. Here we compare the impact of repeat influenza vaccination on hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers, antibody binding and affinity maturation to individual hemagglutinin (HA) domains, HA1 and HA2, across vaccine platforms. Fold change in HI and antibody binding to HA1 trends higher for H1N1pdm09 and H3N2 but not against B strains in groups vaccinated with FluBlok compared with FluCelvax and Fluzone. Antibody-affinity maturation occurs against HA1 domain of H1N1pdm09, H3N2 and B following vaccination with all vaccine platforms, but not against H1N1pdm09-HA2. Importantly, prior year vaccination of subjects receiving repeat vaccinations demonstrated reduced antibody-affinity maturation to HA1 of all three influenza virus strains irrespective of the vaccine platform. This study identifies an important impact of repeat vaccination on antibody-affinity maturation following vaccination, which may contribute to lower vaccine effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccines in humans

Here, Khurana et al. report the results of a phase 4 clinical trial with three FDA approved influenza vaccines and show that repeat influenza vaccination results in reduced antibody affinity maturation to hemagglutinin domain 1 irrespective of vaccine platform.

The immunomodulatory effects of measles-mumps-rubella vaccination on persistence of heterologous vaccine responses

It is proposed that measles-containing vaccines have immunomodulatory effects which include a reduction in all-cause childhood mortality. The antibody response to heterologous vaccines provides a means to explore these immunomodulatory effects. This is the first study to investigate the influence of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on the persistence of antibodies to a broad range of heterologous infant vaccinations given in the first year of life. In total, 319 children were included in the study. All infants received routine vaccinations at 6 weeks, 4 and 6 months of age. At 12 months of age, 212 children were vaccinated with MMR and Haemophilus influenzae type b-meningococcus C (Hib-MenC) vaccines while the remaining 99 children had not yet received these vaccines. In the MMR/Hib-MenC-vaccinated group, blood was taken 28 ± 14 days after receiving these vaccines. Antibodies against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis [pertussis toxin (PT), filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin], poliomyelitis (type 1, 2, 3) and 13 pneumococcal serotypes were measured. Seroprotection rates and geometric mean antibody concentrations were compared between MMR/MenC-Hib-vaccinated and MMR/MenC-Hib-naïve participants. In the final analysis, 311 children were included. Seroprotection rates were lower in MMR/Hib-MenC-vaccinated children against PT and pneumococcal serotype 19A. After adjustment for prespecified factors, MMR/Hib-MenC-vaccinated infants had significantly higher antibody concentrations against tetanus (likely explained by a boosting effect of the carrier protein, a tetanus toxoid), while for the other vaccine antigens there was no difference in antibody concentrations between the two groups. MMR vaccination given at 12 months of age in a developed country does not significantly influence antibody concentrations to heterologous vaccines received in the first year of life.

Factors That Influence the Immune Response to Vaccination

There is substantial variation between individuals in the immune response to vaccination. In this review, we provide an overview of the plethora of studies that have investigated factors that influence humoral and cellular vaccine responses in humans. These include intrinsic host factors (such as age, sex, genetics, and comorbidities), perinatal factors (such as gestational age, birth weight, feeding method, and maternal factors), and extrinsic factors (such as preexisting immunity, microbiota, infections, and antibiotics). Further, environmental factors (such as geographic location, season, family size, and toxins), behavioral factors (such as smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, and sleep), and nutritional factors (such as body mass index, micronutrients, and enteropathy) also influence how individuals respond to vaccines. Moreover, vaccine factors (such as vaccine type, product, adjuvant, and dose) and administration factors (schedule, site, route, time of vaccination, and coadministered vaccines and other drugs) are also important. An understanding of all these factors and their impacts in the design of vaccine studies and decisions on vaccination schedules offers ways to improve vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-United States, 2018-19 Influenza Season

This report updates the 2017-18 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2017;66[No. RR-2]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. A licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) are expected to be available for the 2018-19 season. Standard-dose, unadjuvanted, inactivated influenza vaccines will be available in quadrivalent (IIV4) and trivalent (IIV3) formulations. Recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) will be available in quadrivalent formulations. High-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) and adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) will be available in trivalent formulations.Updates to the recommendations described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 25, 2017; February 21, 2018; and June 20, 2018. New and updated information in this report includes the following four items. First, vaccine viruses included in the 2018-19 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will be an A/Michigan/45/2015 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, an A/Singapore/INFIMH-16-0019/2016 (H3N2)-like virus, and a B/Colorado/06/2017-like virus (Victoria lineage). Quadrivalent influenza vaccines will contain these three viruses and an additional influenza B vaccine virus, a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (Yamagata lineage). Second, recommendations for the use of LAIV4 (FluMist Quadrivalent) have been updated. Following two seasons (2016-17 and 2017-18) during which ACIP recommended that LAIV4 not be used, for the 2018-19 season, vaccination providers may choose to administer any licensed, age-appropriate influenza vaccine (IIV, RIV4, or LAIV4). LAIV4 is an option for those for whom it is appropriate. Third, persons with a history of egg allergy of any severity may receive any licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate influenza vaccine (IIV, RIV4, or LAIV4). Additional recommendations concerning vaccination of egg-allergic persons are discussed. Finally, information on recent licensures and labeling changes is discussed, including expansion of the age indication for Afluria Quadrivalent (IIV4) from ≥18 years to ≥5 years and expansion of the age indication for Fluarix Quadrivalent (IIV4), previously licensed for ≥3 years, to ≥6 months.This report focuses on the recommendations for use of vaccines for the prevention and control of influenza during the 2018-19 season in the United States. A Background Document containing further information and a brief summary of these recommendations are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html.These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check CDC's influenza website periodically for additional information.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2017-18 Influenza Season

This report updates the 2016–17 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-5]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. A licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine should be used.

For the 2017–18 season, quadrivalent and trivalent influenza vaccines will be available. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) will be available in trivalent (IIV3) and quadrivalent (IIV4) formulations. Recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) will be available in trivalent (RIV3) and quadrivalent (RIV4) formulations. Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) is not recommended for use during the 2017–18 season due to concerns about its effectiveness against (H1N1)pdm09 viruses during the 2013–14 and 2015–16 seasons. Recommendations for different vaccine types and specific populations are discussed. No preferential recommendation is made for one influenza vaccine product over another for persons for whom more than one licensed, recommended product is available.

Updates to the recommendations described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 20, 2016; February 22, 2017; and June 21, 2017. New and updated information in this report includes the following:

•Vaccine viruses included in the 2017–18 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will be an A/Michigan/45/2015 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus, and a B/Brisbane/60/2008–like virus (Victoria lineage). Quadrivalent influenza vaccines will contain these three viruses and an additional influenza B vaccine virus, a B/Phuket/3073/2013–like virus (Yamagata lineage).

• Information on recent licensures and labelling changes is discussed, including licensure of Afluria Quadrivalent (IIV4; Seqirus, Parkville, Victoria, Australia); Flublok Quadrivalent (RIV4; Protein Sciences, Meriden, Connecticut); and expansion of the age indication for FluLaval Quadrivalent (IIV4; ID Biomedical Corporation of Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada), previously licensed for ≥3 years, to ≥6 months.

• Pregnant women may receive any licensed, recommended, age-appropriate influenza vaccine.

• Afluria (IIV3; Seqirus, Parkville, Victoria, Australia) may be used for persons aged ≥5 years, consistent with Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling.

• FluMist Quadrivalent (LAIV4; MedImmune, Gaithersburg, Maryland) should not be used during the 2017–18 season due to concerns about its effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses in the United States during the 2013–14 and 2015–16 influenza seasons.

This report focuses on the recommendations for use of vaccines for the prevention and control of influenza during the 2017–18 season in the United States. A Background Document containing further information and a summary of these recommendations are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to 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 (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check CDC’s influenza website periodically for additional information.

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.

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.

Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults

BACKGROUND

The prevention of varicella (chickenpox) using live attenuated varicella vaccines has been demonstrated both in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in population-based immunisation programmes in countries such as the United States and Australia. Many countries do not routinely immunise children against varicella and exposures continue to occur. Although the disease is often mild, complications such as secondary bacterial infection, pneumonitis and encephalitis occur in about 1% of cases, usually leading to hospitalisation. The use of varicella vaccine in persons who have recently been exposed to the varicella zoster virus has been studied as a form of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of vaccines for use as PEP for the prevention of varicella in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March week 1, 2014), EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2014) and LILACS (1982 to March 2014). We searched for unpublished trials registered on the clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs of varicella vaccine for PEP compared with placebo or no intervention. The outcome measures were efficacy in prevention of clinical cases and/or laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and adverse events following vaccination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three trials involving 110 healthy children who were siblings of household contacts. The included trials varied in study quality, vaccine used, length of follow-up and outcomes measured and, as such, were not suitable for meta-analysis. We identified high or unclear risk of bias in two of the three included studies. Overall, 13 out of 56 vaccine recipients (23%) developed varicella compared with 42 out of 54 placebo (or no vaccine) recipients (78%). Of the vaccine recipients who developed varicella, the majority only had mild disease (with fewer than 50 skin lesions). In the three trials, most participants received PEP within three days following exposure; too few participants were vaccinated four to five days post-exposure to ascertain the efficacy of vaccine given more than three days after exposure. No included trial reported on adverse events following immunisation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These small trials suggest varicella vaccine administered within three days to children following household contact with a varicella case reduces infection rates and severity of cases. We identified no RCTs for adolescents or adults. Safety was not adequately addressed.

Vaccines and febrile seizures

Vaccine administration is the second leading cause of febrile seizures (FS). FS occurrence in children is a serious concern because it leads to public apprehension of vaccinations. This review discusses the clinical implications of FS, its potential link to vaccinations and its impact on official recommendations for vaccinations in children. Vaccines such as the pertussis antigen-containing vaccine, the measles-containing vaccine and the influenza vaccine have been linked to FS. However, FS events are very rare and are not usually associated with downstream complications or severe neurologic diseases. Considering their significant health benefits, vaccinations have not been restricted in the pediatric population. Nevertheless, vaccine-induced FS could be a problem, particularly in genetically predisposed children. Therefore, post-marketing surveillance studies are required to accurately assess the incidence of FS and identify individuals who are particularly susceptible to FS after vaccination.

Primary versus secondary failure after varicella vaccination: implications for interval between 2 doses

BACKGROUND

Two-dose varicella vaccination is recommended for optimal control of varicella in populations with high (>90%) 1-dose coverage. Optimal timing of the second dose may depend on whether breakthrough varicella results from primary vaccine failure (no protective immunity after vaccination) or secondary vaccine failure (waning protective immunity).

METHODS

Published literature (1995 to 2012) on vaccine failure after varicella vaccination cited in PubMed and other online sources was reviewed.

RESULTS

Nineteen publications detailed 21 varicella outbreaks with breakthrough varicella rates ranging from 0% to 42%; the publications showed no consistent trend between breakthrough varicella rate and time since vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature to date indicates a relatively high rate of primary vaccine failure and limited evidence of secondary vaccine failure among 1-dose varicella vaccine recipients, suggesting that a short interval between 2 doses might be preferable in countries considering implementation of universal varicella vaccination to reduce breakthrough varicella. However, any potential disruption to well-established vaccination schedules should be considered.

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.

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.

The role of nasal IgA in children vaccinated with live attenuated influenza vaccine

BACKGROUND

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) is the predominant antibody produced in response to mucosal infections. The role of IgA in providing protection against influenza in children vaccinated with live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has not been well described.

METHODS

Nasal IgA responses were assessed using data from 3 prospective, 2-year, randomized studies comparing LAIV with placebo in children 6-36 months of age. In each study, samples were collected in a subset of patients; a new cohort was enrolled each year. Ratios of strain-specific nasal IgA to total nasal IgA were calculated and prevaccination to postvaccination geometric mean fold-rises (GMFRs) were evaluated. Mean postvaccination IgA ratios were compared for subjects with and without confirmed influenza illness by study and in pooled analyses.

RESULTS

Across studies, a higher percentage of children receiving LAIV had a ≥ 2-fold increase in strain-specific IgA ratio compared with placebo recipients. GMFRs after LAIV in years 1 and 2 ranged from 1.2 to 6.2, compared with 0.5-2.2 among placebo recipients. Similar responses were observed in subjects who were baseline seronegative and seropositive based on serum hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers. In years 1 and 2, the mean postvaccination strain-specific to total IgA ratio was 3.1-fold (P<0.01) and 2.0-fold (P<0.03) higher among LAIV recipients with no evidence of culture-confirmed influenza illness compared with LAIV recipients who developed culture-confirmed influenza illness; a similar and consistent trend was observed for each individual study and type/subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

The current analysis demonstrates that nasal IgA contributes to the efficacy of LAIV and can provide evidence of vaccine-induced immunity. However, the inherent heterogeneity in nasal antibody levels and variability in nasal specimen collection hinders the precise evaluation of mucosal antibody responses. Other studies have demonstrated that LAIV-induced immunity is also partially explained by T-cell immunity, serum antibody responses, and innate immunity, consistent with the multi-faceted nature of immunity induced by wild-type influenza infection and other live virus vaccines.

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.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (FluMist®; Fluenz™): a review of its use in the prevention of seasonal influenza in children and adults

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is an intranasally administered trivalent, seasonal influenza vaccine that contains three live influenza viruses (two type A [H1N1 and H3N2 subtypes] and one type B). LAIV was effective in protecting against culture-confirmed influenza caused by antigenically matched and/or distinct viral strains in children aged ≤71 months enrolled in three phase III trials. LAIV was superior to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in protecting against influenza caused by antigenically-matching viral strains in a multinational phase III trial in children aged 6-59 months. LAIV was also significantly more effective than TIV in decreasing the incidence of culture-confirmed influenza illness in two open-label studies (in children with recurrent respiratory tract illnesses aged 6-71 months and in children and adolescents with asthma aged 6-17 years). LAIV did not differ significantly from placebo in preventing febrile illnesses in adults (primary endpoint) enrolled in a phase III trial. However, LAIV significantly reduced the incidence of febrile upper respiratory tract illnesses (URTI), severe febrile illnesses, febrile URTI-related work absenteeism and healthcare provider use. In another well designed trial in adults, LAIV significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with placebo (but not intramuscular TIV). LAIV was generally well tolerated in most age groups, with the majority of adverse events being mild to moderate in severity, and runny nose/nasal congestion being the most common. In a large phase III trial, LAIV, compared with TIV, was associated with an increased incidence of medically significant wheezing in vaccine-naive children aged <24 months and an increased incidence of hospitalization in children aged 6-11 months; LAIV is not approved for use in children <24 months. LAIV was not always associated with high rates of seroconversion/seroresponse, particularly in older children and adults, or in subjects with detectable levels of haemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies at baseline. However, LAIV did elicit mucosal (nasal) IgA antibody responses and strong cell-mediated immunity responses. Only one confirmed case of LAIV virus transmission to a placebo recipient (who did not become ill) occurred in a transmission study conducted in young children. The immunogenic response to LAIV in young healthy children was not affected by concomitant administration with other commonly administered childhood vaccines. In conclusion, intranasal LAIV seasonal influenza vaccine is effective and well tolerated in children, adolescents and adults. LAIV was more effective than TIV in children, although this advantage was not seen in adults. In the US, LAIV is indicated for the active immunization of healthy subjects aged 2-49 years against influenza disease caused by virus subtypes A and type B contained in the vaccine.