Literature DB >> 25416811

How can we solve the enigma of influenza vaccine-induced protection?

Kathleen M Neuzil1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  immunology effectiveness; influenza vaccine

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25416811      PMCID: PMC4407760          DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiu651

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Infect Dis        ISSN: 0022-1899            Impact factor:   5.226


× No keyword cloud information.
For the past decade, on an annual basis, multiple sites across the United States have estimated the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine to prevent influenza-associated, medically attended acute respiratory illness [1]. The standard design involves selecting persons who present to medical facilities with acute respiratory infection and are laboratory-test positive for influenza virus (defined as cases) and comparing their odds of having been vaccinated to those of persons who are laboratory-test negative for influenza virus (controls). Such studies are now done routinely in the United States, Canada, and several other countries [1-4]. This design has been validated using data sets from the gold standard, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of influenza vaccines [4]. Beginning in the 2010–2011 influenza season, Ohmit et al assessed annual influenza vaccine effectiveness by using a prospective household cohort study design [5, 6]. While consuming more time and resources than the case-control approach, this method has the advantage of capturing multiple outcomes (including less severe illness), establishing denominator-based attack rates, and allowing for collection of influenza serology prior to the influenza season. In this issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Ohmit et al provide effectiveness estimates from this Michigan household cohort for the 2012–2013 influenza season [7]. As previously demonstrated in this cohort, there was a detrimental effect of prior vaccination on current vaccine performance. The authors appropriately highlight that comparisons are complex, since vaccination during the prior year may provide some residual disease protection, particularly if the vaccine strain does not change between seasons. Therefore, the use of “neither year” vaccination status as the reference group, in this and other studies, is appropriate. This phenomenon that vaccination against influenza in the prior year is significantly associated with a modestly lower level of clinical protection in the current year has now been reported from multiple populations during multiple influenza seasons, using both the prospective household design, as well as the test-negative case-control design. In addition to the single season effect, McLean et al recently reported on a cohort in Wisconsin with 5 years of historical vaccination data. They found that vaccine effectiveness was significantly higher among individuals with no prior vaccination history, compared with individuals with a frequent vaccination history [8]. Understanding influenza vaccine–induced immunity and protection is complex. In these cohorts, it is not possible to fully account for the interaction between past exposure to naturally circulating influenza virus, past exposure to influenza vaccines, strain match, and age and immunocompetence of each individual. Further, unmeasured confounding remains a concern for any observational study. However, one might postulate that individuals who are not vaccinated in the prior year, or years, would be more likely to have an influenza virus infection and that natural immunity resulting from this infection would be superior to vaccine-induced immunity in preventing influenza. In the study by McLean et al, for example, cases of influenza were less likely to have been vaccinated but also less likely to have received a previous diagnosis of influenza, compared to controls [8]. Further, in a landmark study by Hoskins et al, in a boys' boarding school in England in the 1970s, attack rates during influenza outbreaks were lowest in boys with documented prior influenza virus infection [9]. Understanding the immunologic mechanisms underlying this clinical observation of attenuation of influenza vaccine effectiveness with prior vaccination is important. Vaccine-induced and naturally induced serum antibody responses correlate with protection against influenza. Because of the repeated exposure to influenza virus infection and influenza vaccination, the B-cell response to influenza vaccination is an antigen-recall response in most older children and adults [10]. The emergence of the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) strain (A[H1N1]pdm09) in 2009 provided an opportunity to compare B-cell responses induced by natural infection and vaccine in naive adults, without the confounder of previous exposure. Infection with A(H1N1)pdm09, as compared to vaccination with inactivated A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines, resulted in an increased breadth and magnitude of B-cell responses in adults. Wild-type A(H1N1)pdm09 infection did not affect the antigen-recall response to subsequent inactivated vaccines with the same strain, whereas receipt of A(H1N1)pdm09 inactivated vaccines reduced the B-cell response to repeated vaccination [11]. Ideally, such measures of immunologic responses would be incorporated into multiyear, prospective studies of vaccine effectiveness. In the meantime, what do these observations tell us about the value of repeated vaccinations? Table 1 uses estimates from the Michigan household cohort to highlight the current findings from a disease-prevention standpoint [7]. Based on this scenario, over a 2-year period, the highest number of influenza cases will occur in the population that does not receive any influenza vaccine. Likewise, a single vaccination is better than no vaccination. In support of the current influenza vaccine policy, vaccination in both years prevents more disease than vaccination in a single year, although depending on the assumptions, that benefit may be minimal. While looking at vaccination in a single year may illustrate an apparent negative effect, compared with either year alone, the overall public health impact must be considered over all years, not just the current year. The hypothetical scenario in Table 1 assumes that at entry into the first year of the cohort, all individuals are vaccine naive, which is likely not a reasonable assumption. The lifetime history of influenza virus infection and influenza vaccination will be unique for each person in the cohort. Only through multiyear prospective studies, with evaluation of subclinical infections, will we be able to solve the enigma of vaccine-induced influenza virus immunity. In the meantime, the current policy to administer influenza vaccine every year should be maintained.
Table 1.

Cases of Influenza Prevented in a Hypothetical Cohort in Which the Influenza Attack Rate for Symptomatic Acute Respiratory Illness Is Held Constant at 10% Each Year and Using Point Estimates of Effectiveness in Table 4 From the Associated Article by Ohmit et al [7]

Vaccination StatusCases/100 Persons, 2011–2012Cases/100 Persons, 2012–2013Cases/100 Persons, Both Years
2011–2012 only1.25.76.9
2012–2013 only101.211.2
Both years1.25.36.5
Neither year101020
Cases of Influenza Prevented in a Hypothetical Cohort in Which the Influenza Attack Rate for Symptomatic Acute Respiratory Illness Is Held Constant at 10% Each Year and Using Point Estimates of Effectiveness in Table 4 From the Associated Article by Ohmit et al [7]
  11 in total

1.  Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the 2011-2012 season: protection against each circulating virus and the effect of prior vaccination on estimates.

Authors:  Suzanne E Ohmit; Mark G Thompson; Joshua G Petrie; Swathi N Thaker; Michael L Jackson; Edward A Belongia; Richard K Zimmerman; Manjusha Gaglani; Lois Lamerato; Sarah M Spencer; Lisa Jackson; Jennifer K Meece; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Juhee Song; Marcus Zervos; Po-Yung Cheng; Charles R Rinaldo; Lydia Clipper; David K Shay; Pedro Piedra; Arnold S Monto
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the community and the household.

Authors:  Suzanne E Ohmit; Joshua G Petrie; Ryan E Malosh; Benjamin J Cowling; Mark G Thompson; David K Shay; Arnold S Monto
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 9.079

3.  Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe: results from the I-MOVE multicentre case-control study, 2012/13.

Authors:  M Valenciano; E Kissling
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2013-02-14

4.  Assessment of inactivated influenza-A vaccine after three outbreaks of influenza A at Christ's Hospital.

Authors:  T W Hoskins; J R Davies; A J Smith; C L Miller; A Allchin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1979-01-06       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  The test-negative design: validity, accuracy and precision of vaccine efficacy estimates compared to the gold standard of randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Authors:  G De Serres; D M Skowronski; X W Wu; C S Ambrose
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2013-09-12

6.  The test-negative design for estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness.

Authors:  Michael L Jackson; Jennifer C Nelson
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.641

7.  Rapid cloning of high-affinity human monoclonal antibodies against influenza virus.

Authors:  Jens Wrammert; Kenneth Smith; Joe Miller; William A Langley; Kenneth Kokko; Christian Larsen; Nai-Ying Zheng; Israel Mays; Lori Garman; Christina Helms; Judith James; Gillian M Air; J Donald Capra; Rafi Ahmed; Patrick C Wilson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Impact of repeated vaccination on vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) and B during 8 seasons.

Authors:  Huong Q McLean; Mark G Thompson; Maria E Sundaram; Jennifer K Meece; David L McClure; Thomas C Friedrich; Edward A Belongia
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Distinct patterns of B-cell activation and priming by natural influenza virus infection versus inactivated influenza vaccination.

Authors:  Xiao-Song He; Tyson H Holmes; Mrinmoy Sanyal; Randy A Albrecht; Adolfo García-Sastre; Cornelia L Dekker; Mark M Davis; Harry B Greenberg
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 5.226

10.  Interim estimates of 2013-14 seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness - United States, February 2014.

Authors:  Brendan Flannery; Swathi N Thaker; Jessie Clippard; Arnold S Monto; Suzanne E Ohmit; Richard K Zimmerman; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Manjusha Gaglani; Michael L Jackson; Lisa A Jackson; Edward A Belongia; Huong Q McLean; LaShondra Berman; Angie Foust; Wendy Sessions; Sarah Spencer; Alicia M Fry
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 17.586

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effect of Previous-Year Vaccination on the Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of High-Dose Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults.

Authors:  Carlos A DiazGranados; Andrew J Dunning; Corwin A Robertson; H Keipp Talbot; Victoria Landolfi; David P Greenberg
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2016-02-21       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  The effectiveness of influenza vaccination in preventing hospitalisations of elderly individuals in two influenza seasons: a multicentre case-control study, Spain, 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Authors:  Angela Domínguez; Núria Soldevila; Diana Toledo; Pere Godoy; Elena Espejo; Maria Amelia Fernandez; José María Mayoral; Jesús Castilla; Mikel Egurrola; Sonia Tamames; Jenaro Astray; María Morales-Suárez-Varela
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2017-08-24

Review 3.  [High-dose trivalent influenza vaccine. Efficacy and effectiveness].

Authors:  A Gil de Miguel; E Redondo Marguello; J Díez Domingo; R Ortiz de Lejarazu; F Martinón Torres
Journal:  Rev Esp Quimioter       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 1.553

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.