Literature DB >> 34952751

A randomized controlled trial of antibody response to 2019-20 cell-based inactivated and egg-based live attenuated influenza vaccines in children and young adults.

Katherine V Williams1, Bo Zhai2, John F Alcorn3, Mary Patricia Nowalk4, Min Z Levine5, Sara S Kim6, Brendan Flannery7, Krissy Moehling Geffel8, Amanda Jaber Merranko9, Jennifer P Nagg10, Mark Collins11, Michael Susick12, Karen S Clarke13, Richard K Zimmerman14, Judith M Martin15.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) titers to the live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are typically lower than its counterpart egg-based inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV). Similar comparisons have not been made between LAIV4 and the 4-strain, cell-culture inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4). We compared healthy children's and young adults' HAI titers against the 2019-2020 LAIV4 and ccIIV4.
METHODS: Participants aged 4-21 years were randomized 1:1 to receive ccIIV4 (n = 100) or LAIV4 (n = 98). Blood was drawn prevaccination and on day 28 (21-35) post vaccination. HAI assays against egg-grown A/H1N1, A/H3N2, both vaccine B strains and cell-grown A/H3N2 antigens were conducted. Primary outcomes were geometric mean titers (GMT) and geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in titers.
RESULTS: GMTs to A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B/Victoria increased following both ccIIV and LAIV and to B/Yamagata following ccIIV (p < 0.05). The GMFR range was 2.4-3.0 times higher for ccIIV4 than for LAIV4 (p < 0.001). Within vaccine types, egg-grown A/H3N2 GMTs were higher (p < 0.05) than cell-grown GMTs [ccIIV4 day 28: egg = 205 (95% CI: 178-237); cell = 136 (95% CI:113-165); LAIV4 day 28: egg = 96 (95% CI: 83-112); cell = 63 (95% CI: 58-74)]. The GMFR to A/H3N2 cell-grown and egg-grown antigens were similar. Pre-vaccination titers inversely predicted GMFR.
CONCLUSION: The HAI response to ccIIV4 was greater than LAIV4 in this study of mostly older children, and day 0 HAI titers inversely predicted GMFR for both vaccines. Lower prevaccination titers were associated with greater GMFR in both vaccine groups.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cell-culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine; Egg-based live attenuated influenza vaccine; Hemagglutination inhibition assay; Influenza; Influenza vaccine; Randomized controlled trial

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34952751      PMCID: PMC8803136          DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.12.034

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


  18 in total

1.  Hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers as a correlate of protection for inactivated influenza vaccines in children.

Authors:  Steven Black; Uwe Nicolay; Timo Vesikari; Markus Knuf; Giuseppe Del Giudice; Giovanni Della Cioppa; Theodore Tsai; Ralf Clemens; Rino Rappuoli
Journal:  Pediatr Infect Dis J       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.129

2.  Comparative analysis of influenza A(H3N2) virus hemagglutinin specific IgG subclass and IgA responses in children and adults after influenza vaccination.

Authors:  Alessandro Manenti; Sarah M Tete; Kristin G-I Mohn; Åsne Jul-Larsen; Elena Gianchecchi; Emanuele Montomoli; Karl A Brokstad; Rebecca J Cox
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 3.641

Review 3.  Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine: Is Past Performance a Guarantee of Future Results?

Authors:  Ravi Jhaveri
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 3.393

4.  Differential gene expression elicited by children in response to the 2015-16 live attenuated versus inactivated influenza vaccine.

Authors:  Kelly Stefano Cole; Judith M Martin; William T Horne; Chyongchiou J Lin; Mary Patricia Nowalk; John F Alcorn; Richard K Zimmerman
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2017-11-11       Impact factor: 3.641

5.  Vaccine failure and serologic response to live attenuated and inactivated influenza vaccines in children during the 2013-2014 season.

Authors:  Jennifer P King; Huong Q McLean; Jennifer K Meece; Min Z Levine; Sarah M Spencer; Brendan Flannery; Edward A Belongia
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 3.641

6.  A randomized controlled trial of antibody response to 2018-19 cell-based vs. egg-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in children.

Authors:  Krissy K Moehling; Richard K Zimmerman; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Chyongchiou Jeng Lin; Judith M Martin; John F Alcorn; Michael Susick; Ashley Burroughs; Crystal Holiday; Brendan Flannery; Min Z Levine
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2020-06-21       Impact factor: 3.641

7.  Live attenuated or inactivated influenza vaccines and medical encounters for respiratory illnesses among US military personnel.

Authors:  Zhong Wang; Steven Tobler; Jean Roayaei; Angelia Eick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Immune responses after live attenuated influenza vaccination.

Authors:  Kristin G-I Mohn; Ingrid Smith; Haakon Sjursen; Rebecca Jane Cox
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Impact of age and pre-existing influenza immune responses in humans receiving split inactivated influenza vaccine on the induction of the breadth of antibodies to influenza A strains.

Authors:  Ivette A Nuñez; Michael A Carlock; James D Allen; Simon O Owino; Krissy K Moehling; Patricia Nowalk; Michael Susick; Kensington Diagle; Kristen Sweeney; Sophia Mundle; Thorsten U Vogel; Simon Delagrave; Moti Ramgopal; Richard K Zimmerman; Harry Kleanthous; Ted M Ross
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  New Technologies for Influenza Vaccines.

Authors:  Steven Rockman; Karen L Laurie; Simone Parkes; Adam Wheatley; Ian G Barr
Journal:  Microorganisms       Date:  2020-11-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.