Tiffany W Y Ng1, Benjamin J Cowling1, Hui Zhi Gao1, Mark G Thompson2. 1. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, China. 2. Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of enhanced influenza vaccines have been developed for use in older adults, including high-dose, MF59-adjuvanted, and intradermal vaccines. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review examining the improvements in antibody responses measured by the hemagglutination inhibition assay associated with these enhanced vaccines, compared with each other and with the standard-dose (SD) vaccine using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-nine trials were included. Compared with adults aged ≥60 years receiving SD vaccines, those receiving enhanced vaccines had significantly higher postvaccination titers (for all vaccine strains) and higher proportions with elevated titers ≥40 (for most vaccine strains). High-dose vaccine elicited 82% higher postvaccination titer to A(H3N2) compared with SD vaccine; this was significantly higher than the 52% estimated for MF59-adjuvanted versus SD vaccines (P = .04), which was higher than the 32% estimated for intradermal versus SD vaccines (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, by summarizing current evidence, we found that enhanced vaccines had greater antibody responses than the SD vaccine. Indications of differences among enhanced vaccines highlight the fact that further research is needed to compare new vaccine options, especially during seasons with mismatched circulating strains and for immune outcomes other than hemagglutination inhibition titers as well as vaccine efficacy.
BACKGROUND: A number of enhanced influenza vaccines have been developed for use in older adults, including high-dose, MF59-adjuvanted, and intradermal vaccines. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review examining the improvements in antibody responses measured by the hemagglutination inhibition assay associated with these enhanced vaccines, compared with each other and with the standard-dose (SD) vaccine using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-nine trials were included. Compared with adults aged ≥60 years receiving SD vaccines, those receiving enhanced vaccines had significantly higher postvaccination titers (for all vaccine strains) and higher proportions with elevated titers ≥40 (for most vaccine strains). High-dose vaccine elicited 82% higher postvaccination titer to A(H3N2) compared with SD vaccine; this was significantly higher than the 52% estimated for MF59-adjuvanted versus SD vaccines (P = .04), which was higher than the 32% estimated for intradermal versus SD vaccines (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, by summarizing current evidence, we found that enhanced vaccines had greater antibody responses than the SD vaccine. Indications of differences among enhanced vaccines highlight the fact that further research is needed to compare new vaccine options, especially during seasons with mismatched circulating strains and for immune outcomes other than hemagglutination inhibition titers as well as vaccine efficacy.
Authors: Lisa M Dunkle; Ruvim Izikson; Peter Patriarca; Karen L Goldenthal; Derek Muse; Janice Callahan; Manon M J Cox Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carlos A DiazGranados; Andrew J Dunning; Emilia Jordanov; Victoria Landolfi; Martine Denis; H Keipp Talbot Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Carlos A DiazGranados; Andrew J Dunning; Murray Kimmel; Daniel Kirby; John Treanor; Avi Collins; Richard Pollak; Janet Christoff; John Earl; Victoria Landolfi; Earl Martin; Sanjay Gurunathan; Richard Nathan; David P Greenberg; Nadia G Tornieporth; Michael D Decker; H Keipp Talbot Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jason K H Lee; Gary K L Lam; Thomas Shin; Jiyeon Kim; Anish Krishnan; David P Greenberg; Ayman Chit Journal: Expert Rev Vaccines Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 5.217
Authors: Benjamin J Cowling; Ranawaka A P M Perera; Sophie A Valkenburg; Nancy H L Leung; A Danielle Iuliano; Yat Hung Tam; Jennifer H F Wong; Vicky J Fang; Athena P Y Li; Hau Chi So; Dennis K M Ip; Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner; Alicia M Fry; Min Z Levine; Shivaprakash Gangappa; Suryaprakash Sambhara; Ian G Barr; Danuta M Skowronski; J S Malik Peiris; Mark G Thompson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Miguel Ángel Palacios-Pedrero; Albert D M E Osterhaus; Tanja Becker; Husni Elbahesh; Guus F Rimmelzwaan; Giulietta Saletti Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Joshua D Doyle; Lauren Beacham; Emily T Martin; H Keipp Talbot; Arnold Monto; Manjusha Gaglani; Donald B Middleton; Fernanda P Silveira; Richard K Zimmerman; Elif Alyanak; Emily R Smith; Brendan L Flannery; Melissa Rolfes; Jill M Ferdinands Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Angus H Forster; Katey Witham; Alexandra C I Depelsenaire; Margaret Veitch; James W Wells; Adam Wheatley; Melinda Pryor; Jason D Lickliter; Barbara Francis; Steve Rockman; Jesse Bodle; Peter Treasure; Julian Hickling; Germain J P Fernando Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 11.069