Gender differences in local and systemic reactions to inactivated influenza vaccine, established by a meta-analysis of fourteen independent studies

In order to determine whether there is a difference between genders in reported adverse reactions to inactivated influenza vaccine, a computerized database of serological studies was investigated. A standardized questionnaire was used to evaluate vaccine reactogenicity. A total of 1,800 vaccinees in 14 studies were analyzed separately for two age groups ( or = 60 years of age). Females reported significantly more local reactions than males. The pooled odds ratio for the outcome measure "any local reaction" was 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.40, significant) and 0.54 (95% Cl, 0.41-0.70, significant) for young and elderly adults, respectively. Similar results were obtained for the outcome measure "any systemic reaction." Previous exposure to influenza or influenza vaccine had no influence on reactogenicity. There were no gender differences in sero-responses. In conclusion, gender should be regarded as a predictor of reported reactions to influenza vaccine in both young and elderly adults and should be addressed in future study designs

Antibody landscapes after influenza virus infection or vaccination.

We introduce the antibody landscape, a method for the quantitative analysis of antibody-mediated immunity to antigenically variable pathogens, achieved by accounting for antigenic variation among pathogen strains. We generated antibody landscapes to study immune profiles covering 43 years of influenza A/H3N2 virus evolution for 69 individuals monitored for infection over 6 years and for 225 individuals pre- and postvaccination. Upon infection and vaccination, titers increased broadly, including previously encountered viruses far beyond the extent of cross-reactivity observed after a primary infection. We explored implications for vaccination and found that the use of an antigenically advanced virus had the dual benefit of inducing antibodies against both advanced and previous antigenic clusters. These results indicate that preemptive vaccine updates may improve influenza vaccine efficacy in previously exposed individuals.This is the author’s version of the work. It will be under embargo for 6 months following publication. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The final version is available from AAAS in Science at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6212/996.long

Economic Analysis of Pandemic Influenza Vaccination Strategies in Singapore

BACKGROUND: All influenza pandemic plans advocate pandemic vaccination. However, few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different vaccination strategies. This paper compares the economic outcomes of vaccination compared with treatment with antiviral agents alone, in Singapore. METHODOLOGY: We analyzed the economic outcomes of pandemic vaccination (immediate vaccination and vaccine stockpiling) compared with treatment-only in Singapore using a decision-based model to perform cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. We also explored the annual insurance premium (willingness to pay) depending on the perceived risk of the next pandemic occurring. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The treatment-only strategy resulted in 690 deaths, 13,950 hospitalization days, and economic cost of USD$497 million. For immediate vaccination, at vaccine effectiveness of >55%, vaccination was cost-beneficial over treatment-only. Vaccine stockpiling is not cost-effective in most scenarios even with 100% vaccine effectiveness. The annual insurance premium was highest with immediate vaccination, and was lower with increased duration to the next pandemic. The premium was also higher with higher vaccine effectiveness, attack rates, and case-fatality rates. Stockpiling with case-fatality rates of 0.4-0.6% would be cost-beneficial if vaccine effectiveness was >80%; while at case-fatality of >5% stockpiling would be cost-beneficial even if vaccine effectiveness was 20%. High-risk sub-groups warrant higher premiums than low-risk sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: The actual pandemic vaccine effectiveness and lead time is unknown. Vaccine strategy should be based on perception of severity. Immediate vaccination is most cost-effective, but requires vaccines to be available when required. Vaccine stockpiling as insurance against worst-case scenarios is also cost-effective. Research and development is therefore critical to develop and stockpile cheap, readily available effective vaccines

Adaptation of High-Growth Influenza H5N1 Vaccine Virus in Vero Cells: Implications for Pandemic Preparedness

Current egg-based influenza vaccine production technology can't promptly meet the global demand during an influenza pandemic as shown in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Moreover, its manufacturing capacity would be vulnerable during pandemics caused by highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses. Therefore, vaccine production using mammalian cell technology is becoming attractive. Current influenza H5N1 vaccine strain (NIBRG-14), a reassortant virus between A/Vietnam/1194/2004 (H5N1) virus and egg-adapted high-growth A/PR/8/1934 virus, could grow efficiently in eggs and MDCK cells but not Vero cells which is the most popular cell line for manufacturing human vaccines. After serial passages and plaque purifications of the NIBRG-14 vaccine virus in Vero cells, one high-growth virus strain (Vero-15) was generated and can grow over 108 TCID50/ml. In conclusion, one high-growth H5N1 vaccine virus was generated in Vero cells, which can be used to manufacture influenza H5N1 vaccines and prepare reassortant vaccine viruses for other influenza A subtypes

Wegener's granulomatosis patients show an adequate antibody response to influenza vaccination

Objectives: Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) is a systemic vasculitis characterised by relapsing and remitting disease activity. Immunosuppressive drugs are used to control disease, but increase susceptibility to infection. Therefore, influenza vaccination should be considered in WG patients. This study was performed to assess the immunogenicity of influenza vaccination in WG patients. Methods: A randomised, controlled trial was performed in WG patients with quiescent disease, defined as a Birmingham vasculitis activity score (BVAS) less than 2. Patients were randomly assigned to receive influenza vaccination (n = 49) or to participate as controls (n = 23). In addition, healthy controls (n = 49) were vaccinated. At entry and at 1 and 3-4 months after entry, antibody responses to vaccination were determined. Furthermore, disease activity was measured (BVAS), adverse effects were recorded and antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA) titres were determined. Results: WG patients achieved high seroprotection rates to all three influenza strains, comparable with healthy controls. Only the A/H1N1 strain patients had a lower seroconversion rate (p = 0.002) and geometric mean titre (p = 0.037) than controls. After 1 month, one control and one vaccinated WG patient had developed active disease. At 3-4 months, two additional control patients had developed active disease compared with none of the vaccinated patients (p = 0.099). Vaccination did not influence ANCA titres. Adverse effects did not differ between patients and healthy controls. Conclusions: Influenza vaccination in WG patients with quiescent disease induced a sufficient antibody response