Evaluating influenza vaccines: progress and perspectives

mRNA vaccines: The future of prevention of viral infections?

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

Isolated specific IgA against respiratory viruses, Influenza or SARS-CoV-2, present in the saliva of a fraction of healthy and asymptomatic volunteers

OBJECTIVES

Defense against respiratory viruses depends on an immune response present in the mucosa, as saliva IgA secretes antibodies. During the pandemic, such as influenza or SARS-CoV-2, most infected patients are asymptomatic but retain specific antibodies post-infection. The authors evaluated IgG and IgA antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in the saliva of asymptomatic volunteers, validated with controls or vaccinated individuals.

METHODS

The authors detected specific antibodies by validated conventional ELISA using natural SARS-CoV-2 antigens from infected Vero cells or capture-ELISA for influenza using natural antigens of the influenza vaccine.

RESULTS

Saliva from influenza-vaccinated individuals had more IgA than paired serum, contrary to the findings for specific IgG. In COVID-19-vaccinated samples, specific IgA in saliva increased after vaccination, but IgG levels were high after the first dose. In saliva from the asymptomatic population (226), anti-Influenza IgG was found in 57.5% (130) of samples, higher than IgA, found in 35% (79) of samples. IgA results were similar for SARS-CoV-2, with IgA present in 30% (68) of samples, while IgG was less present, in 44.2% (100) of samples. The proportion of influenza IgG responders was higher than that for SARS-CoV-2 IgG, but both populations presented similar proportions of IgA responders, possibly due to variable memory B cell survival. For both viruses, the authors found an important proportion (> 10%) of IgA+IgG- samples, suggesting the occurrence of humoral immunity directed to the mucosa.

CONCLUSION

Specific antibodies for respiratory viruses in saliva are found in either infection or vaccination and are a convenient and sensitive diagnostic tool for host immune response.

Neurologic Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines: Lessons From the Past to Inform the Present

The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has triggered a global effort to rapidly develop and deploy effective and safe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations. Vaccination has been one of the most effective medical interventions in human history, although potential safety risks of novel vaccines must be monitored, identified, and quantified. Adverse events must be carefully assessed to define whether they are causally associated with vaccination or coincidence. Neurologic adverse events following immunizations are overall rare but with significant morbidity and mortality when they occur. Here, we review neurologic conditions seen in the context of prior vaccinations and the current data to date on select COVID-19 vaccines including mRNA vaccines and the adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines, ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2.S Johnson & Johnson (Janssen/J&J).

Animal Models Utilized for the Development of Influenza Virus Vaccines

Animal models have been an important tool for the development of influenza virus vaccines since the 1940s. Over the past 80 years, influenza virus vaccines have evolved into more complex formulations, including trivalent and quadrivalent inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated vaccines, and subunit vaccines. However, annual effectiveness data shows that current vaccines have varying levels of protection that range between 40–60% and must be reformulated every few years to combat antigenic drift. To address these issues, novel influenza virus vaccines are currently in development. These vaccines rely heavily on animal models to determine efficacy and immunogenicity. In this review, we describe seasonal and novel influenza virus vaccines and highlight important animal models used to develop them.

Immunogenicity and Toxicity of Different Adjuvants Can Be Characterized by Profiling Lung Biomarker Genes After Nasal Immunization

The efficacy of vaccine adjuvants depends on their ability to appropriately enhance the immunogenicity of vaccine antigens, which is often insufficient in non-adjuvanted vaccines. Genomic analyses of immune responses elicited by vaccine adjuvants provide information that is critical for the rational design of adjuvant vaccination strategies. In this study, biomarker genes from the genomic analyses of lungs after priming were used to predict the efficacy and toxicity of vaccine adjuvants. Based on the results, it was verified whether the efficacy and toxicity of the tested adjuvants could be predicted based on the biomarker gene profiles after priming. Various commercially available adjuvants were assessed by combining them with the split influenza vaccine and were subsequently administered in mice through nasal inoculation. The expression levels of lung biomarker genes within 24 h after priming were analyzed. Furthermore, we analyzed the antibody titer, cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) induction, IgG1/IgG2a ratio, leukopenic toxicity, and cytotoxicity in mice vaccinated at similar doses. The association between the phenotypes and the changes in the expression levels of biomarker genes were analyzed. The ability of the adjuvants to induce the production of antigen-specific IgA could be assessed based on the levels of Timp1 expression. Furthermore, the expression of this gene partially correlated with the levels of other damage-associated molecular patterns in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Additionally, the changes in the expression of proteasome- and transporter-related genes involved in major histocompatibility complex class 1 antigen presentation could be monitored to effectively assess the expansion of CTL by adjuvants. The monitoring of certain genes is necessary for the assessment of leukopenic toxicity and cytotoxicity of the tested adjuvant. These results indicate that the efficacy and toxicity of various adjuvants can be characterized by profiling lung biomarker genes after the first instance of immunization. This approach could make a significant contribution to the development of optimal selection and exploratory screening strategies for novel adjuvants.

Pharmacodynamic and safety considerations for influenza vaccine and adjuvant design

INTRODUCTION

A novel adjuvant evaluation system for safety and immunogenicity is needed. Vaccination is important for infection prevention, for example, from influenza viruses. Adjuvants are considered critical for improving the effectiveness of influenza vaccines. Adjuvant development is an important issue in influenza vaccine design.

AREAS COVERED

A conventional in vivo evaluation method for vaccine safety has been limited in analyzing phenotypic and pathological changes. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain information on the changes at the molecular level. This review aims to explain the recently developed genomics analysis-based vaccine adjuvant safety evaluation tools verified by AddaVax^TM and polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) using 18 biomarker genes and whole-virion inactivated influenza vaccine as a toxicity control. Genomics analyzes would help provide safety and efficacy information regarding influenza vaccine design by facilitating appropriate adjuvant selection.

EXPERT OPINION

The efficacy and safety profiles of influenza vaccines and adjuvants using genomics technologies provide useful information regarding immunogenicity, which is related to safety and efficacy. This approach provides important information to select appropriate inoculation routes, combinations of vaccine antigens and adjuvants, and dosing amounts. The efficacy of vaccine adjuvant evaluation by genomics analysis should be verified by various studies using various vaccines in the future.

Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent and tetravalent influenza vaccines in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Children and adolescents are susceptible to influenza. Vaccination is the most important strategy for preventing influenza, yet there are few studies on the immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (QIV) containing two A strains (H1N1 and H3N2) and two B lineages (Victoria and Yamagata). Therefore, to further clarify the immunogenicity and safety of QIV in children and adolescents, a meta-analysis was performed to provide a reference for the development of influenza prevention strategies.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published as of February 12, 2019. Random clinical trials comparing the immunogenicity and safety of QIV and TIV among children and adolescents were selected. The main outcomes were comparisons of immunogenicity (seroprotection rate [SPR] and seroconversion rate [SCR] and adverse events using risk ratios (RRs). The meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Among the 6 months up to 3 years group, QIV showed a higher SPR for B lineages than for TIV-B/Yamagata, with pooled RRs of 3.07 (95% CI: 2.58-3.66) and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01-1.11), respectively. For the 3 years through 18 years, QIV had a higher SCR and SPR for the Yamagata lineage than for TIV-B/Victoria, with pooled RRs of 2.30 (95% CI: 1.83-2.88) and 1.16 (95% CI: 1.03-1.30), respectively. Compared to TIV-B/Yamagata, a higher SCR and SPR for the Victoria lineage was found for QIV, with RRs of 3.09 (95% CI: 1.99-4.78) and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.22-2.41), respectively. Regarding adverse events, only pain was more frequently reported for QIV than TIV ; the RR was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.02-1.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The immunogenicity of QIV for common ingredients was similar to that of TIV, but the former exhibited significantly higher immunogenicity for the unique lineage. QIV also had the same reliable safety as TIV.

How to assess the effectiveness of nasal influenza vaccines? Role and measurement of sIgA in mucosal secretions

Secretory IgAs (sIgA) constitute the principal isotype of antibodies present in nasal and mucosal secretions. They are secreted by plasma cells adjacent to the mucosal epithelial cells, the site where infection occurs, and are the main humoral mediator of mucosal immunity. Mucosally delivered vaccines, such as live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), are able to mimic natural infection without causing disease or virus transmission and mainly elicit a local immune response. The measurement of sIgA concentrations in nasal swab/wash and saliva samples is therefore a valuable tool for evaluating their role in the effectiveness of such vaccines. Here, we describe two standardized assays (enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay and microneutralization) available for the quantification of sIgA and discuss the advantages and limitations of their use.

Immunogenicity and Safety of the New Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Vaxigrip Tetra: Preliminary Results in Children ≥6 Months and Older Adults

Since the mid-1980s, two lineages of influenza B viruses have been distinguished. These can co-circulate, limiting the protection provided by inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs). This has prompted efforts to formulate quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVs), to enhance protection against circulating influenza B viruses. This review describes the results obtained from seven phase III clinical trials evaluating the immunogenicity, safety, and lot-to-lot consistency of a new quadrivalent split-virion influenza vaccine (Vaxigrip Tetra®) formulated by adding a second B strain to the already licensed TIV. Since Vaxigrip Tetra was developed by means of a manufacturing process strictly related to that used for TIV, the data on the safety profile of TIV are considered supportive of that of Vaxigrip Tetra. The safety and immunogenicity of Vaxigrip Tetra were similar to those of the corresponding licensed TIV. Moreover, the new vaccine elicits a superior immune response towards the additional strain, without affecting immunogenicity towards the other three strains. Vaxigrip Tetra is well tolerated, has aroused no safety concerns, and is recommended for the active immunization of individuals aged ≥6 months. In addition, preliminary data confirm its immunogenicity and safety even in children aged 6-35 months and its immunogenicity in older subjects (aged 66-80 years).

The appropriateness of the use of influenza vaccines: Recommendations from the latest seasons in Italy

Influenza is one of the major infectious causes of excess mortality, hospitalization, and an increase in healthcare expenditure in all countries. In an increasingly ageing population, many members are exposed to flu-related complications. Vaccination coverage rates for the elderly in most European countries, such as Italy, are not satisfactory, and have been decreasing with time due to a sense of skepticism toward vaccination. Nowadays, many types of vaccines are available on the Italian market to prevent influenza illness. Many studies have proven their effectiveness in preventing influenza-related complications in specific risk groups. Any vaccine can be crucial to avoid complications, hospitalizations and death, but use of the most appropriate vaccine could optimize the result at a very modest cost. General practitioners (GPs) should encourage their patients to take the influenza vaccination to prevent complications or deaths. Health authorities should give GPs the opportunity to choose the appropriate vaccines tailored to specific patients.

Influenza vaccines: Evaluation of the safety profile

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