High-Dose Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Patients Undergoing Dialysis

Influenza vaccination for elderly, vulnerable and high-risk subjects: a narrative review and expert opinion

Influenza is associated with a substantial health burden, especially in high-risk subjects such as older adults, frail individuals and those with underlying chronic diseases. In this review, we summarized clinical findings regarding the impact of influenza in vulnerable populations, highlighted the benefits of influenza vaccination in preventing severe illness and complications and reviewed the main evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of the vaccines that are best suited to older adults among those available in Italy. The adverse outcomes associated with influenza infection in elderly and frail subjects and those with underlying chronic diseases are well documented in the literature, as are the benefits of vaccination (mostly in older adults and in patients with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and chronic lung disease). High-dose and adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccines were specifically developed to provide enhanced immune responses in older adults, who generally have low responses mainly due to immunosenescence, comorbidities and frailty. These vaccines have been evaluated in clinical studies and systematic reviews by international immunization advisory boards, including the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The high-dose vaccine is the only licensed influenza vaccine to have demonstrated greater efficacy versus a standard-dose vaccine in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in a randomized controlled trial. Despite global recommendations, the vaccination coverage in high-risk populations is still suboptimal. All healthcare professionals (including specialists) have an important role in increasing vaccination rates.

Influenza Vaccine Administration and Effectiveness Among Children and Adults With Glomerular Disease

Introduction

Influenza infections contribute to excess healthcare utilization, morbidity, and mortality in individuals with glomerular disease (GD); however, influenza vaccination may not yield protective immune responses in this high-risk patient population. The objective of the present study was to describe influenza vaccine administration from 2010 to 2019 and explore the effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with GD.

Methods

We conducted an observational cohort study using healthcare claims for seasonal influenza vaccination (exposure) as well as influenza and influenza-like illness (outcomes) from commercially insured children and adults <65 years of age with primary GD in the Merative MarketScan Research Databases. Propensity score-weighted cox proportional hazards models and ratio-of-hazard ratios (RHR) analyses were used to compare influenza infection risk in years where seasonal influenza vaccines matched or mismatched circulating viral strains.

Results

The mean proportion of individuals vaccinated per season was 23% (range 19%-24%). In pooled analyses comparing matched to mismatched seasons, vaccination was minimally protective for both influenza (RHR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.41) and influenza-like illness (RHR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59-1.24), though estimates were limited by sample size.

Conclusion

Rates of influenza vaccination are suboptimal among patients with GD. Protection from influenza after vaccination may be poor, leading to excess infection-related morbidity in this vulnerable population.

Preventing infections in immunocompromised patients with kidney diseases: vaccines and antimicrobial prophylaxis

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic revealed that our understanding of infectious complications and strategies to mitigate severe infections in patients with glomerular diseases is limited. Beyond COVID-19, there are several infections that specifically impact care of patients receiving immunosuppressive measures. This review will provide an overview of six different infectious complications frequently encountered in patients with glomerular diseases, and will focus on recent achievements in terms of vaccine developments and understanding of the use of specific antimicrobial prophylaxis. These include influenza virus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, reactivation of a chronic or past infection with hepatitis B virus in cases receiving B-cell depletion, reactivation of cytomegalovirus, and cases of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Varicella zoster virus infections are particularly frequent in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and an inactivated vaccine is available to use as an alternative to the attenuated vaccine in patients receiving immunosuppressants. As with COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine responses are generally impaired in older patients, and after recent administration of B-cell depleting agents, and high doses of mycophenolate mofetil and other immunosuppressants. Strategies to curb infectious complications are manifold and will be outlined in this review.

Vaccination in patients with kidney failure: lessons from COVID-19

Infection is the second leading cause of death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Adequate humoral (antibody) and cellular (T cell-driven) immunity are required to minimize pathogen entry and promote pathogen clearance to enable infection control. Vaccination can generate cellular and humoral immunity against specific pathogens and is used to prevent many life-threatening infectious diseases. However, vaccination efficacy is diminished in patients with CKD. Premature ageing of the immune system and chronic systemic low-grade inflammation are the main causes of immune alteration in these patients. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 can have considerable detrimental effects in patients with CKD, especially in those with kidney failure. COVID-19 prevention through successful vaccination is therefore paramount in this vulnerable population. Although patients receiving dialysis have seroconversion rates comparable to those of patients with normal kidney function, most kidney transplant recipients could not generate humoral immunity after two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Importantly, some patients who were not able to produce antibodies still had a detectable vaccine-specific T cell response, which might be sufficient to prevent severe COVID-19. Correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 have not been established for patients with kidney failure, but they are urgently needed to enable personalized vaccination regimens.

Seroresponse to Inactivated and Recombinant Influenza Vaccines Among Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

High-dose influenza vaccine provides better protection against influenza infection in older adults than standard-dose vaccine. We compared vaccine seroresponse among hemodialysis patients over a period of 4 months after administration of high-dose trivalent inactivated (HD-IIV3), standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated (SD-IIV4), or quadrivalent recombinant quadrivalent (RIV4) influenza vaccine.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients at 4 hemodialysis clinics who received influenza vaccine.

EXPOSURE

Type of influenza vaccine.

OUTCOME

Hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers were measured at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months after vaccination. The primary outcome was seroprotection rates at HI titers of at least 1:40 and at least 1:160 (antibody levels providing protection from infection in approximately 50% and 95% of immunocompetent individuals, respectively) at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months after vaccination.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We calculated geometric mean titer as well as seroprotection and seroconversion rates. Adjusted generalized linear models with additional trend analyses were performed to evaluate the association between vaccine type and outcomes.

RESULTS

254 hemodialysis patients were vaccinated against influenza with HD-IIV3 (n = 141), SD-IIV4 (n = 36), or RIV4 (n = 77). A robust initial seroresponse to influenza A strains was observed after all 3 vaccines. Geometric mean titer and seroprotection (HI titer ≥1:160) rates against influenza A strains were higher and more sustained with HD-IIV3 than SD-IIV4 or RIV4. More than 80% of patients vaccinated with HD-IIV3 were seroprotected (HI titer ≥1:160) at month 4 (P < 0.001), whereas, among patients vaccinated with SD-IIV4 or RIV4, seroprotection rates were similar to those at baseline. Seroprotection rates were lower against B strains for all vaccines.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the use of observational data, bias from unmeasured confounders may exist. Some age subgroups were small in number. Clinical outcome data were not available.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodialysis patients exhibited high seroprotection rates after all 3 influenza vaccines. The seroresponse waned more slowly with HD-IIV3 compared with SD-IIV4 and RIV4 vaccines.

Decline of Humoral Responses 6 Months after Vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) in Patients on Hemodialysis

This study analyzed binding and neutralizing antibody titers up to 6 months after standard vaccination with BNT162b2 (two doses of 30 µg each) in SARS-CoV-2 naïve patients (n = 59) on hemodialysis. Humoral vaccine responses were measured before and 6, 12, and 24 weeks after the first vaccination. A chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) was used to quantify SARS-CoV-2 IgG against the spike glycoprotein. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity was tested against the wild-type virus. A multivariable binary regression model was used to identify risk factors for the absence of humoral immune responses at 6 months. At week 6, vaccine-specific seroconversion was detected in 96.6% of all patients with median anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs of 918 BAU/mL. At weeks 12 and 24, seroconversion rates decreased to 91.5% and 79.7%, and corresponding median binding antibody titers declined to 298 BAU/mL and 89 BAU/mL, respectively. Neutralizing antibodies showed a decay from 79.6% at week 6 to 32.8% at week 24. The risk factor with the strongest association for vanishing immune responses was low serum albumin (p = 0.018). Regarding vaccine-specific humoral responses 6 months after the standard BNT162b2 vaccination schedule, SARS-CoV-2 naïve patients receiving hemodialysis must be considered at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and being infectious.

Value of influenza vaccines in cancer patients during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

According to the recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), getting influenza vaccines during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemics is especially important for people with certain underlying medical conditions, like cancer. Due to the similarities between the symptoms of influenza and COVID-19, receiving the flu vaccine in suspicious cases can be helpful because it will make it easier to request a medical test and diagnosis. In this study, the value of influenza vaccination in the cancer population was investigated.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, all cancer patients who were referred to our clinic and had eligibility to receive the flu vaccine were included in our study for following up clinical signs every week for one month. All patients who were vaccinated from October 1 to November 15, 2020 were investigated. The most side effects that were followed were fever, runny nose, bone pain, and life-threatening or persistent adverse effects.

RESULTS

From a total of 288 patients (median age: 52 years (range 18-79), 112 (38.9%) males and 176 (61.1%) female) with different types of cancers, only two patients had an adverse effect of vaccination (including bone pain, runny nose, and fatigue), and one had COVID-19 ten days after vaccination. The rest of the patients did not show any side effects due to flu vaccination after one month of follow-up. Cancer patients are recommended to receive the flu vaccine annually during the pandemic and after the end of this pandemic, usually during the flu epidemic season to reduce mortality.

Humoral Response to the Pfizer BNT162b2 Vaccine in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with higher morbidity and mortality in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Patients on dialysis tend to have a reduced immune response to infection or vaccination. We aimed to assess, for the first time to the best of our knowledge, the humoral response following vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients on maintenance hemodialysis and the factors associated with it.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The study included 56 patients on maintenance hemodialysis (dialysis group) and a control group composed of 95 health care workers. All participants had received two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine. The serology testing was done using Quant II IgG anti-Spike severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay by Abbott a median of 30 days after receipt of the second dose of the vaccine.

RESULTS

All subjects in the control group developed an antibody response compared with 96% (54 of 56) positive responders in the dialysis group. The IgG levels in the dialysis group (median, 2900; interquartile range, 1128-5651) were significantly lower than in the control group (median, 7401; interquartile range, 3687-15,471). A Mann-Whitney U test indicated that this difference was statistically significant (U=1238; P<0.001). There was a significant inverse correlation of age and IgG levels in both groups. The odds of being in the lower quartile were significantly higher for older individuals (odds ratio, 1.11 per year of age; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.20; P=0.004) and for the dialysis group compared with the control group (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 7.51; P=0.05). Within the dialysis group, older age and lower lymphocyte count were associated with antibody response in the lower quartile (odds ratio, 1.22 per 1-year older; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.68; P=0.03 and odds ratio, 0.83 per 10-e3/µl-higher lymphocyte count; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.97; P=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although most patients on maintenance hemodialysis developed a substantial humoral response following the BNT162b2 vaccine, it was significantly lower than controls. Age was an important factor in the humoral response, regardless of chronic medical conditions.

Influenza vaccination reduces incidence of peripheral arterial occlusive disease in elderly patients with chronic kidney disease

An influenza vaccination might reduce the risk of incident peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but supporting evidence is limited. This case-crossover study analyzed data from Taiwan's real-world National Health Insurance Research Database. This study included elderly (≥ 67 years old) patients with CKD having incident PAOD from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2015. We defined 1 year before PAOD onset as the index date for the self-control group. A conditional logistic regression model was used to investigate exposure to an influenza vaccination for estimating the risk for incident PAOD following vaccination. In total, this study included 46,782 elderly patients with CKD having incident PAOD. The odds ratios for incident PAOD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.94), 0.85 (0.79-0.92), 0.84 (0.79-0.90), and 0.85 (0.81-0.90) at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months after an influenza vaccination, respectively. We observed consistent results for the subgroups of patients with CKD and concomitant diabetes. However, we did not observe any beneficial effects of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced CKD or end-stage renal disease. This study demonstrated that influenza vaccination may be associated with a reduced risk of incident PAOD among patients with early-stage CKD.

Comparison of Immunogenicity and Safety between a Single Dose and One Booster Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccination in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A 20-Week, Open-Label Trial

BACKGROUND

Non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD-ND) patients are recommended to receive a one-dose influenza vaccination annually. However, studies investigating vaccine efficacy in the CKD-ND population are still lacking. In this study, we aimed to evaluate vaccine efficacy between the one-dose and two-dose regimen and among patients with different stages of CKD throughout a 20-week follow-up period.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, non-randomized, open-label, controlled trial among patients with all stages of CKD-ND. Subjects were classified as unvaccinated, one-dose, and two-dose groups (4 weeks apart) after enrollment. Serial changes in immunological parameters (0, 4, 8, and 20 weeks after enrollment), including seroprotection, geometric mean titer (GMT), GMT fold-increase, seroconversion, and seroresponse, were applied to evaluate vaccine efficacy.

RESULTS

There were 43, 84, and 71 patients in the unvaccinated, one-dose, and two-dose vaccination groups, respectively. At 4-8 weeks after vaccination, seroprotection rates in the one- and two-dose group for H1N1, H3N2, and B ranged from 82.6-95.8%, 97.4-100%, and 73.9-100%, respectively. The concomitant seroconversion and GMT fold-increases nearly met the suggested criteria for vaccine efficacy for the elderly population. Although the seroprotection rates for all of the groups were adequate, the seroconversion and GMT fold-increase at 20 weeks after vaccination did not meet the criteria for vaccine efficacy. The two-dose regimen had a higher probability of achieving seroprotection for B strains (Odds ratio: 3.5, 95% confidence interval (1.30-9.40)). No significant differences in vaccine efficacy were found between early (stage 1-3) and late (stage 4-5) stage CKD.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard one-dose vaccination can elicit sufficient protective antibodies. The two-dose regimen induced a better immune response when the baseline serum antibody titer was low. Monitoring change in antibody titers for a longer duration is warranted to further determine the current vaccine strategy in CKD-ND population.

Comparative safety of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccination in patients with end-stage renal disease

BACKGROUND

High-dose influenza vaccine (HDV) is an alternative vaccination strategy in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), though the safety of HDV has not been evaluated in this population. The objective of this study was to estimate the relative occurrence of adverse vaccine reactions in patients with ESRD following vaccination with HDV compared with standard-dose influenza vaccine (SDV).

METHODS

Using data from the United States Renal Data System, we identified patients with ESRD aged ≥ 65 years at influenza vaccination during yearly influenza seasons from 2010 through 2016. Patients were followed after vaccination to observe serious (anaphylaxis, angioedema, seizure, encephalopathy, Guillain-Barré syndrome [GBS], and short-term, all-cause mortality) and milder (urticaria/hives, rash, pain in limb, cellulitis, myalgia/myositis, fever, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and syncope) adverse events. Propensity score-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HDV versus SDV were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Of 520,876 vaccinations observed (mean age = 74.7 years at vaccination; 63% white race), 7.4% were HDV. For serious events, the weighted HRs were null for seizure, encephalopathy, and mortality and inestimable due to too few cases for anaphylaxis, angioedema, and GBS. For milder vaccine reactions, the weighted HRs demonstrated generally increased risks in the HDV group, including rash (HR = 1.86; 95% CI, 1.34-2.57), diarrhea (HR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50), pain in limb (HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and myalgia/myositis (HR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

The risks of serious adverse events were low and similar between treatment groups; however, HDV recipients had increased risks of several milder adverse events compared with SDV recipients, consistent with clinical trial findings in the general population of older adults. These results add important information to inform the risk-benefit tradeoff of the use of HDV versus SDV in patients with ESRD.

Influenza in dialysis patients: an opportunity to decrease mortality?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Influenza is a major cause of morbidity in dialysis patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent meta-analysis finds reduced influenza infections, hospitalizations and deaths with use of high dose as compared with standard-dose vaccine in the elderly. There remain no randomized clinical trials of vaccine efficacy in dialysis patients. One observational study finds reduced all-cause hospitalization with high-dose as compared with standard-dose vaccine but another study finds no difference in influenza related events. A simulation study, in which the timing of vaccination and antibody waning rates are varied, finds vaccine efficacy among populations prone to premature waning, to be greater if the vaccine is administered later, as long as the opportunity to vaccinate does not decline. In a phase 3 trial involving low-risk patients with uncomplicated influenza, baloxavir (which is of a novel class of antiinfluenza treatment), was associated with a faster decline in virus titers and no difference in resolution of symptoms as compared with oseltamivir.

SUMMARY

By extension of high-quality evidence in the elderly, we recommend using the high dose vaccine in all dialysis patients. Vaccine efficacy may be enhanced in dialysis patients if vaccination is delayed until late October to mid-November. It is premature to use baloxavir over oseltamivir or the combination to treat influenza in dialysis patients though trials are forthcoming.

Comparative Effectiveness of High-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine Among Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Studies of patients on maintenance dialysis therapy suggest that standard-dose influenza vaccine (SDV) may not prevent influenza-related outcomes. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of SDV versus high-dose influenza vaccine (HDV) in this population.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study using data from the US Renal Data System.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

507,552 adults undergoing in-center maintenance hemodialysis between the 2010 to 2011 and 2014 to 2015 influenza seasons.

EXPOSURES

SDV and HDV.

OUTCOMES

All-cause mortality, hospitalization due to influenza or pneumonia, and influenza-like illness during the influenza season.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Patients were eligible for inclusion in multiple yearly cohorts; thus, our unit of analysis was the influenza patient-season. To examine the relationship between vaccine dose and effectiveness outcomes, we estimated risk differences and risk ratios using propensity score weighting of Kaplan-Meier functions, accounting for a wide range of patient- and facility-level characteristics. For nonmortality outcomes, we used competing-risk methods to account for the high mortality rate in the dialysis population.

RESULTS

Within 225,215 influenza patient-seasons among adults 65 years and older, 97.4% received SDV and 2.6% received HDV. We observed similar risk estimates for HDV and SDV recipients for mortality (risk difference, -0.08%; 95% CI, -0.85% to 0.80%), hospitalization due to influenza or pneumonia (risk difference, 0.15%; 95% CI, -0.69% to 0.93%), and influenza-like illness (risk difference, 0.00%; 95% CI, -1.50% to 1.08%). Our findings were similar among adults younger than 65 years, as well as within other subgroups defined by influenza season, age group, dialysis vintage, month of influenza vaccination, and vaccine valence.

LIMITATIONS

Residual confounding and outcome misclassification.

CONCLUSIONS

The HDV does not appear to provide additional protection beyond the SDV against all-cause mortality or influenza-related outcomes for adults undergoing hemodialysis. The additional cost and side effects associated with HDV should be considered when offering this vaccine. Future studies of HDV and other influenza vaccine strategies are warranted.