Literature DB >> 11818152

Cold-adapted live influenza vaccine versus inactivated vaccine: systemic vaccine reactions, local and systemic antibody response, and vaccine efficacy. A meta-analysis.

W E P Beyer1, A M Palache, J C de Jong, A D M E Osterhaus.   

Abstract

Since the 1940s, influenza vaccines are inactivated and purified virus or virus subunit preparations (IIV) administered by the intramuscular route. Since decades, attempts have been made to construct, as an alternative, attenuated live influenza vaccines (LIV) for intranasal administration. Presently, the most successful LIV is derived from the cold-adapted master strains A/Ann Arbor/6/60 (H2N2) and B/Ann Arbor/1/66 (AA-LIV, for Ann-Arbor-derived live influenza vaccine). It has been claimed that AA-LIV is more efficacious than IIV. In order to assess differences between the two vaccines with respect to systemic reactogenicity, antibody response, and efficacy, we performed a meta-analysis on eighteen randomised comparative clinical trials involving a total of 5000 vaccinees of all ages. Pooled odds ratios (AA-LIV versus IIV) were calculated according to the random effects model. The two vaccines were associated with similarly low frequencies of systemic vaccine reactions (pooled odds ratio: 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.24). AA-LIV induced significantly lower levels of serum haemagglutination inhibiting antibody and significantly greater levels of local IgA antibody (influenza virus-specific respiratory IgA assayed by ELISA in nasal wash specimens) than IIV. Yet, although they predominantly stimulate different antibody compartments, the two vaccines were similarly efficacious in preventing culture-positive influenza illness. In all trials assessing clinical efficacy, the odds ratios were not significantly different from one (point of equivalence). The pooled odds ratio for influenza A-H3N2 was 1.50 (95% CI: 0.80-2.82), and for A-H1N1, 1.03 (95% CI: 0.58-1.82). The choice between the two vaccine types should be based on weighing the advantage of the attractive non-invasive mode of administration of AA-LIV, against serious concerns about the biological risks inherent to large-scale use of infectious influenza virus, in particular the hazard of gene reassortment with non-human influenza virus strains.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11818152     DOI: 10.1016/s0264-410x(01)00471-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vaccine        ISSN: 0264-410X            Impact factor:   3.641


  77 in total

1.  Effective induction of protective systemic immunity with nasally administered vaccines adjuvanted with IL-1.

Authors:  William M Gwinn; Shaun M Kirwan; Sheena H Wang; Kathleen A Ashcraft; Neil L Sparks; Catherine R Doil; Tom G Tlusty; Leslie S Casey; Susan K Hollingshead; David E Briles; Richard S Dondero; Anthony J Hickey; W Michael Foster; Herman F Staats
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 3.641

2.  Live attenuated influenza virus expressing human interleukin-2 reveals increased immunogenic potential in young and aged hosts.

Authors:  Boris Ferko; Christian Kittel; Julia Romanova; Sabine Sereinig; Hermann Katinger; Andrej Egorov
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2006-09-13       Impact factor: 5.103

Review 3.  Live attenuated influenza vaccine (FluMist®; Fluenz™): a review of its use in the prevention of seasonal influenza in children and adults.

Authors:  Natalie J Carter; Monique P Curran
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2011-08-20       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 4.  Cell culture-based influenza vaccines: A necessary and indispensable investment for the future.

Authors:  Nagendra R Hegde
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Vaccines and recommendations for their use in inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  María Dolores Sánchez-Tembleque; Carmen Corella; Jose L Pérez-Calle
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  A post-marketing surveillance study of a human live-virus pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccine (Nasovac (®) ) in India.

Authors:  Prasad S Kulkarni; Sidram K Raut; Rajeev M Dhere
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 7.  Intranasal cold-adapted influenza virus vaccine combined with inactivated influenza virus vaccines: an extra boost for the elderly?

Authors:  Paul V Targonski; Gregory A Poland
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 8.  A Moraxella catarrhalis vaccine to protect against otitis media and exacerbations of COPD: An update on current progress and challenges.

Authors:  Antonia C Perez; Timothy F Murphy
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 9.  Designing vaccines for pandemic influenza.

Authors:  Taisuke Horimoto; Yoshihiro Kawaoka
Journal:  Curr Top Microbiol Immunol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.291

Review 10.  Influenza: the virus and prophylaxis with inactivated influenza vaccine in "at risk" groups, including COPD patients.

Authors:  Arnt-Ove Hovden; Rebecca Jane Cox; Lars Reinhardt Haaheim
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2007
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.