Immunogenicity and tolerability of a virosome influenza vaccine compared to split influenza vaccine in patients with sickle cell anemia

The immunogenicity and tolerability of virosome and of split influenza vaccines in patients with sickle cell anemia (SS) were evaluated Ninety SS patients from 8 to 34 years old were randomly assigned to receive either virosome (n = 43) or split vaccine (n = 47) Two blood samples were collected, one before and one 4-6 weeks after vaccination Antibodies against viral strains (2006) A/New Caledonia (H1N1), A/California (H3N2), B/Malaysia were determined using the hemagglutinin inhibition test Post-vaccine reactions were recorded over 7 days Seroconversion rates for HI NI, H3N2 and B were 65 1%. 60 4% and 83 7% for virosome vaccine, and 68 0%, 61 7% and 68 0% for split vaccine Seroprotection rates for HI NI, H3N2 e B were 100%. 97 6% and 69.7% for virosome. and 97 8%, 97 8% and 76 6% for split vaccine No severe adverse reactions were recorded Virosome and split vaccines in patients with sickle cell anemia were equally Immunogenic. with high seroconversion and seroprotection rates Both vaccines were well tolerated (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

Impact of anti-T cell therapy in the immunogenicity of seasonal influenza vaccine in kidney transplants recipients

1. Mise en perspective de l'étude La grippe est une cause importante de morbidité et de mortalité après la transplantation d'organe. Bien que la principale stratégie de prévention de la grippe après la transplantation d'organes soit l'administration du vaccin antigrippal annuel, l'immunogénicité de ce vaccin chez les greffés d'organe n'est pas optimale. Nous avons effectué une étude prospective pour évaluer l'influence de la thérapie d'induction sur l'immunogénicité du vaccin de la grippe. 2. Méthodes Nous avons comparé la réponse au vaccin de la grippe chez deux groupes de greffés rénaux en fonction de la thérapie d'induction reçu (thymoglobulin vs basiliximab). Le taux des anticorps ont étés mesurés par inhibition de l'hémagglutination (HI). La réponse au vaccin (taux de séroconversion) a été définie comme l'augmentation > 4 fois du taux d'anticorps (immunoglobulines) et ceci a été notre outcome primaire. 3. Résultats Soixante transplantés rénaux ont été inclus dans l'étude (thymoglobuline=22, basiliximab=38). Les patients dans le group traité par thymoglobuline étaient plus âgés (p=0.16), avaient des valeurs de créatinine plus élevés (p=0.16) et avaient étés transplanté auparavant (p=0.02). Aucune différence n'a été mise en évidence au niveau de taux des immunoglobulines pour les 3 souches virales entre les 2 groupes (p=0.69 pour H INI, p=0.56 pour H3N2, p=0.7 pour Influenza Β). Le taux de séroconversion à au moins une souche virale a été de 68 % pour le groupe thymoglobuline et de 73% pour le groupe basiliximab (p=0.77). 4. Conclusion Aucune différence significative n'a été démontré dans l'immunogénicité du vaccin de la grippe dans les transplantés rénaux ayant reçu soit du thymoglobuline soit du basiliximab comme traitement d'induction.

Low-dose intradermal versus intramuscular trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine in lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: In this study we compared the immunogenicity of influenza vaccine administered intradermally to the standard intramuscular vaccination in lung transplant recipients. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive the trivalent inactivated seasonal 2008-9 influenza vaccine containing either 6 μg (intradermal) or 15 μg (intramuscular) of hemagglutinin per viral strain. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of geometric mean titer of antibodies using the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay. Vaccine response was defined as a 4-fold or higher increase of antibody titers to at least one vaccine antigen. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients received either the intradermal (n = 41) or intramuscular (n = 44) vaccine. Vaccine response was seen in 6 of 41 patients (14.6%) in the intradermal vs 8 of 43 (18.6%) in the intramuscular group (p = 0.77). Seroprotection (HI ≥1:32) was 39% for H1N1, 83% for H3N2 and 29% for B strain in the intradermal group vs 28% for H1N1, 98% for H3N2 and 58% for B strain in the intramuscular group (p = 0.36 for H1N1, p = 0.02 for H3N2, p < 0.01 for B). Mild adverse events were seen in 44% of patients in the intradermal group and 34% in the intramuscular group (p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Immunogenicity of the 2008-9 influenza vaccine given intradermally or intramuscularly was overall poor in lung transplant recipients. Novel strategies for influenza vaccination in this population are needed.

Early estimates of the effectiveness of the 2011/12 influenza vaccine in the population targeted for vaccination in Spain, 25 December 2011 to 19 February 2012.

We present early estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the population targeted for vaccination, during 25 December 2011 to 19 February 2012. The adjusted VE was 55% (95% CI: 3 to 79) against any type of influenza virus and 54% (95% CI: 1 to 79) against influenza A(H3N2) virus. This suggests a moderate protective effect of the vaccine in the targeted population in a late influenza epidemic with limited match between vaccine and circulating strains.

Impact of Anti-T-Cell Therapy in the Immunogenicity of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The influence of anti-T-cell therapy in the immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine in kidney transplant recipients remains unclear. METHODS: During the 2010 to 2011 influenza season, we evaluated the immune response to the inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine in kidney transplant recipients having received Thymoglobulin or basiliximab as induction therapy. A hemagglutination inhibition assay was used to assess the immunogenicity of the vaccine. The primary outcome was geometric mean titers of hemagglutination inhibition after influenza vaccination. RESULTS: Sixty patients (Thymoglobulin n=22 and basiliximab n=38) were included. Patients in the Thymoglobulin group were older (P=0.16), showed higher creatinine levels (P=0.16) and had more frequently received a previous transplant (P=0.02). There were no significant differences in geometric mean titers for any of the three viral strains between groups (P=0.69 for H1N1, P=0.56 for H3N2, and P=0.7 for B strain). Seroconversion to at least one viral strain was seen in 15 (68%) of 22 patients in the Thymoglobulin group and 28 (73%) of 38 in the basiliximab group (P=0.77). In patients vaccinated during the first year after receiving anti-T-cell therapy (n=25), there was a trend toward lower vaccine responses in the Thymoglobulin group. Patients who received Thymoglobulin showed lower CD4 cell counts and lower levels of IgM, at an average of 16.2 months after transplantation. A multivariate analysis showed that only the absence of mycophenolate was associated with a better vaccine response (odds ratio=9.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-86.9; P=0.047). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were seen in immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine in kidney transplant recipients having received either Thymoglobulin or basiliximab.

Prevalence rate and reasons for refusals of influenza vaccine in elderly.

More knowledge on the reasons for refusal of the influenza vaccine in elderly patients is essential to target groups for additional information, and hence improve coverage rate. The objective of the present study was to describe precisely the true motives for refusal. All patients aged over 64 who attended the Medical Outpatient Clinic, University of Lausanne, or their private practitioner's office during the 1999 and 2000 vaccination periods were included. Each patient was informed on influenza and its complications, as well as on the need for vaccination, its efficacy and adverse events. The vaccination was then proposed. In case of refusal, the reasons were investigated with an open question. Out of 1398 patients, 148 (12%) refused the vaccination. The main reasons for refusal were the perception of being in good health (16%), of not being susceptible to influenza (15%), of not having had the influenza vaccine in the past (15%), of having had a bad experience either personally or a relative (15%), and the uselessness of the vaccine (10%). Seventeen percent gave miscellaneous reasons and 12% no reason at all for refusal. Little epidemiological knowledge and resistance to change appear to be the major obstacles for wide acceptance of the vaccine by the elderly.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Intradermal vs. Intramuscular Influenza Vaccine in Lung Transplant Recipients

Background: Immunogenicity of standard infl uenza vaccine is suboptimal in lung transplant recipients. Intradermal vaccine may elicit stronger responses due to recruitment of local dendritic cells. We compared the immunogenicity of the infl uenza vaccine administered intradermally (ID) to the standard intramuscular (IM) vaccination. Methods: In this investigator-blinded, two-center, prospective trial, lung transplant patients were randomized to receive intradermal (6ug) or intramuscular (15ug) 2008/9 trivalent inactivated infl uenza vaccine. Immunogenicity was evaluated using a standard hemagglutination inhibition assay (HIA). Response to the vaccine was defi ned as a fourfold increase of the HIA levels for any of the 3 viral strains in the vaccine. Geometric mean titers (GMT) and seroprotection rate (HIA ≥32) were also analyzed. Patients were followed during 6 months for the development of infl uenza or acute rejection. Results: We randomized 84 patients to receive the ID (n=41) vs. IM (n=43) vaccine, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Median time from transplantation was 3.4 yrs (ID) vs. 3.3 yrs (IM) (p=0.84). Vaccine response to at least one antigen was seen in 6/41 (14.6%) patients in the ID vs. 8/43 (18.6%) in the IM group (p=0.77). In the ID group, GMTs (95% CI) after vaccination were 15.7 (11.1-22.3) for H1N1, 84.0 (52.0-135.7) for H3N2, and 14.5 (9.6-21.8) for B strains vs. in the IM group 17.5 (11.8-25.9) for H1N1, 108.9 (77.5-153.2) for H3N2, and 20.2 (12.8-31.9) for B (p=NS, all 3 strains). Seroprotection was 39% (H1N1), 82.9% (H3N2) and 29.3% (B strain) in the ID group vs. 27.9% (H1N1), 97.7% (H3N2) and 58.1% (B strain) in the IM group. No factors associated with vaccine response were identifi ed. Mild adverse events were seen in 44% of patients (ID) vs. 34% (IM) (p=0.38). Two patients (4.8%) in the ID group developed infl uenza infection compared to none in the IM group. Two patients in each group developed biopsy-proven acute rejection during follow-up. Conclusions: Immunogenicity of the 2008/09 infl uenza vaccine was poor in lung transplant recipients. ID administration of the vaccine elicited similar immune responses to standard IM vaccination. Novel strategies of vaccination are needed to protect lung transplant recipients from infl uenza.

Prevalence rate and reasons for refusals of influenza vaccine in the elderly

RESUME Peu d'informations sont disponibles concernant la prévalence et les motifs de refus de la vaccination contre la grippe dans la population âgée. Le but de notre recherche était d'investiguer les vrais motifs de refus de la vaccination (c'est-à-dire pas uniquement les raisons de non-vaccination parfois indépendantes du patient lui- même) chez les personnes âgées. Tous les patients ambulatoires de plus de 65 ans consultant la Policlinique Médicale Universitaire (PMU) de Lausanne ou leur médecin traitant durant les périodes de vaccination contre la grippe 1999-2000 et 2000-2001 ont été inclus. Chaque patient recevait une information sur la grippe et ses complications, de même que sur la nécessité de la vaccination, son efficacité et ses effets seconda ires éventuels. En l'absence de contre-indication, la vaccination était proposée. En cas de refus, les motifs étaient investigués par une question ouverte. Sur 1398 sujets inclus, 148 (12%) ont refusé la vaccination. Les raisons principales de refus étaient la perception d'être en bonne santé (16%), de ne pas être susceptible à la grippe (15%) ou le fait de ne jamais avoir été vacciné contre la grippe dans le passé (15%). On retrouvait également la mauvaise expérience personnelle ou d'un proche lors d'une vaccination (15%) et l'impression d'inutilité du vaccin (10%). 17% des personnes interrogées ont donné des motifs autres et 12% n'ont pas explicité leur non-acceptation. Les refus de vaccination contre la grippe dans la population âgée sont essentiellement liés aux convictions intimes du patient quant à son état de santé et à sa susceptibilité à la grippe, de même qu'à l'efficacité supposée de la vaccination. La résistance au changement semble être un obstacle majeur à l'introduction de la vaccination chez les personnes de plus de 65 ans. SUMMARY More knowledge on the reasons for refusal of the influenza vaccine in elderly patients is essential to target groups for additional information, and hence improve coverage rate. The objective of the present study was to describe precisely the true motives for refusal. All patients aged over 64 who attended the Medical Outpatient Clinic, University of Lausanne, or their private practitioner's office during the 1999 and 2000 vaccination periods were included. Each patient was informed on influenza and its complications, as well as on the need for vaccination, its efficacy and adverse events. The vaccination was then proposed. In case of refusal, the reasons were investigated with an open question. Out of 1398 patients, 148 (12%) refused the vaccination. The main reasons for refusal were the perception of being in good health (16%), of not being susceptible to influenza (15%), of not having had the influenza vaccine in the past (15%), of having had a bad experience either personally or a relative (15%), and the uselessness of the vaccine (10%). Seventeen percent gave miscellaneous reasons and 12% no reason at all for refusal. Little epidemiological knowledge and resistance to change appear to be the major obstacles for wide acceptance of the vaccine by the elderly.

Safety of intramuscular influenza vaccine in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy: a single blinded multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial

Influenza vaccines are recommended for administration by the intramuscular route. However, many physicians use the subcutaneous route for patients receiving an oral anticoagulant because this route is thought to induce fewer hemorrhagic side effects. Our aim is to assess the safety of intramuscular administration of influenza vaccine in patients on oral anticoagulation therapy. Methods: Design: Randomised, controlled, single blinded, multi-centre clinical trial. Setting: 4 primary care practices in Barcelona, Spain. Participants: 229 patients on oral anticoagulation therapy eligible for influenza vaccine during the 20032004 season. Interventions: intramuscular administration of influença vaccine in the experimental group (129 patients) compared to subcutaneous administration in the control group (100 patients). Primary outcome: change in the circumference of the arm at the site of injection at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes: appearance of local reactions and pain at 24 hours and at 10 days; change in INR (International Normalized Ratio) at 24 hours and at 10 days. Analysis was by intention to treat using the 95% confidence intervals of the proportions or mean differences. Results: Baseline variables in the two groups were similar. No major side effects or major haemorrhage during the follow-up period were reported. No significant differences were observed in the primary outcome between the two groups. The appearance of local adverse reactions was more frequent in the subcutaneous administration group (37,4% vs. 17,4%, 95% confidence interval of the difference 8,2% to 31,8%). Conclusion: This study shows that the intramuscular administration route of influenza vaccine in patients on anticoagulant therapy does not have more side effects than the subcutaneous administration route

Generation of candidate human influenza vaccine strains in cell culture: rehearsing the European response to an H7N1 pandemic threat

Background: Although H5N1 avian influenza viruses pose the most obvious imminent pandemic threat, there have been several recent zoonotic incidents involving transmission of H7 viruses to humans. Vaccines are the primary public health defense against pandemics, but reliance on embryonated chickens eggs to propagate vaccine and logistic problems posed by the use of new technology may slow our ability to respond rapidly in a pandemic situation. Objectives: We sought to generate an H7 candidate vaccine virus suitable for administration to humans whose generation and amplification avoided the use of eggs. Methods: We generated a suitable H7 vaccine virus by reverse genetics. This virus, known as RD3, comprises the internal genes of A/Puerto Rico/8/34 with surface antigens of the highly pathogenic avian strain A/Chicken/Italy/13474/99 (H7N1). The multi-basic amino acid site in the HA gene, associated with high pathogenicity in chickens, was removed. Results: The HA modification did not alter the antigenicity of the virus and the resultant single basic motif was stably retained following several passages in Vero and PER. C6 cells. RD3 was attenuated for growth in embryonated eggs, chickens, and ferrets. RD3 induced an antibody response in infected animals reactive against both the homologous virus and other H7 influenza viruses associated with recent infection by H7 viruses in humans. Conclusions: This is the first report of a candidate H7 vaccine virus for use in humans generated by reverse genetics and propagated entirely in mammalian tissue culture. The vaccine has potential use against a wide range of H7 strains.

Can a short period of micronutrient supplementation in older institutionalized people improve response to influenza vaccine? A randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that a micronutrient supplement can improve seroconversion after influenza immunization in older institutionalized people. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Nursing and residential homes in Liverpool, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-four residents aged 60 and older from 31 homes were initially randomized; of these, 119 (72.6%) completed the study. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receive a micronutrient supplement providing the reference nutrient intake for all vitamins and trace elements or identical placebo. Tablets were taken over an 8-week period during September and October 2000; influenza vaccine was administered 4 weeks after their commencement. MEASUREMENTS: The hemagglutination-inhibiting antibody response as defined by a fourfold or greater titer rise over 4 weeks and assessed separately for each of the three antigens contained in the 2000/2001 influenza vaccine (A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1), A/Moscow/10/99 (H3N2), B/Beijing/184/93 (B)). RESULTS: Despite a significant increase in serum concentrations of vitamins A, C, D-3, E, folate, and selenium in the supplemented group, there was no significant difference between groups (supplemented vs placebo, respectively) in the proportion of participants seroconverting to H1N1 (41% vs 49%, P=.374), H3N2 (49% vs 58%, P=.343), or B (41% vs 40%, P=.944). CONCLUSION: A micronutrient supplement providing the reference nutrient intake administered over 8 weeks had no beneficial effect on antibody response to influenza vaccine in older people living in long-term care.

Prospective surveillance study of acute respiratory infections, influenza-like illness and seasonal influenza vaccine in a cohort of juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients

Background Acute respiratory infections (ARI) are frequent in children and complications can occur in patients with chronic diseases. We evaluated the frequency and impact of ARI and influenza-like illness (ILI) episodes on disease activity, and the immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccine in a cohort of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients. Methods Surveillance of respiratory viruses was conducted in JIA patients during ARI season (March to August) in two consecutive years: 2007 (61 patients) and 2008 (63 patients). Patients with ARI or ILI had respiratory samples collected for virus detection by real time PCR. In 2008, 44 patients were immunized with influenza vaccine. JIA activity index (ACRPed30) was assessed during both surveillance periods. Influenza hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers were measured before and 30-40 days after vaccination. Results During the study period 105 ARI episodes were reported and 26.6% of them were ILI. Of 33 samples collected, 60% were positive for at least one virus. Influenza and rhinovirus were the most frequently detected, in 30% of the samples. Of the 50 JIA flares observed, 20% were temporally associated to ARI. Influenza seroprotection rates were higher than 70% (91-100%) for all strains, and seroconversion rates exceeded 40% (74-93%). In general, response to influenza vaccine was not influenced by therapy or disease activity, but patients using anti-TNF alpha drugs presented lower seroconversion to H1N1 strain. No significant differences were found in ACRPed30 after vaccination and no patient reported ILI for 6 months after vaccination. Conclusion ARI episodes are relatively frequent in JIA patients and may have a role triggering JIA flares. Trivalent split influenza vaccine seems to be immunogenic and safe in JIA patients.

Barriers to Influenza Immunization: The Role of Physician Training on Influenza Vaccine Utilization in Six to Twenty-Three Month Old Infants

Digital Preservation