Efficacy and safety of a quadrivalent influenza vaccine in children aged 6–35 months: A global,multiseasonal, controlled,randomized Phase III study

BackgroundChildren are an important target group for influenza vaccination, but few studies have prospectively evaluated influenza vaccine efficacy (VE) in children under 3 years of age. This was a randomized Phase III trial to assess the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) in young children (EudraCT: 2016–004904–74).MethodsInfluenza-naïve children aged 6–35 months were randomized during three influenza seasons to receive vaccination with QIV or a non-influenza control vaccine. One group of participants was revaccinated with QIV in the subsequent influenza season. The primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute VE of QIV against influenza caused by any circulating strain. Key secondary efficacy endpoints included the absolute VE of QIV against influenza due to antigenically matching strains and immunogenicity. Safety and reactogenicity were also evaluated.ResultsIn total, 1005 children received QIV and 995 received control vaccine. Influenza A/B infection due to any circulating influenza strain occurred less frequently in children who received QIV versus children receiving a control vaccine. The absolute VE of QIV against any circulating influenza strain was 54% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37%, 66%). The absolute VE of QIV against antigenically matching influenza strains was 68% (95% CI: 45%, 81%). Mean hemagglutination inhibition titers for all influenza strains in the QIV group increased post-vaccination, whereas increases were minimal in the control vaccine group; results from virus neutralization and neuraminidase-inhibition assays were generally consistent with the hemagglutination inhibition assay findings. Approximately 12 months after primary vaccination with QIV, antibody titers remained higher than pre-vaccination titers for most strains. In participants who were revaccinated, QIV elicited strong antibody responses. The overall safety profile and reactogenicity of QIV was comparable with control vaccine.ConclusionPrimary vaccination with QIV was well tolerated and effective in protecting children aged 6–35 months against influenza.     

Active SMS-based influenza vaccine safety surveillance in Australian children

IntroductionAustralia’s novel, active surveillance system, AusVaxSafety, monitors the post-market safety of vaccines in near real time. We analysed cumulative surveillance data for children aged 6 months to 4 years who received seasonal influenza vaccine in 2015 and/or 2016 to determine: adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) rates by vaccine brand, age and concomitant vaccine administration.MethodsParent/carer reports of AEFI occurring within 3 days of their child receiving an influenza vaccine in sentinel immunisation clinics were solicited by Short Message Service (SMS) and/or email-based survey. Retrospective data from 2 years were combined to examine specific AEFI rates, particularly fever and medical attendance as a proxy for serious adverse events (SAE), with and without concomitant vaccine administration. As trivalent influenza vaccines (TIV) were funded in Australia’s National Immunisation Program (NIP) in 2015 and quadrivalent (QIV) in 2016, respectively, we compared their safety profiles.Results7402 children were included. Data were reported weekly through each vaccination season; no safety signals or excess of adverse events were detected. More children who received a concomitant vaccine had fever (7.5% versus 2.8%; p < .001). Meningococcal B vaccine was associated with the highest increase in AEFI rates among children receiving a specified concomitant vaccine: 30.3% reported an AEFI compared with 7.3% who received an influenza vaccine alone (p < .001). Reported fever was strongly associated with medical attendance (OR: 42.6; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 25.6–71.0). TIV and QIV safety profiles included low and expected AEFI rates (fever: 4.3% for TIV compared with 3.2% for QIV (p = .015); injection site reaction: 1.9% for TIV compared with 3.0% for QIV (p < .001)). There was no difference in safety profile between brands.DiscussionActive participant-reported data provided timely vaccine brand-specific safety information. Our surveillance system has particular utility in monitoring the safety of influenza vaccines, given that they may vary in composition annually.     

Trends in effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in children by age groups in seven seasons immediately before the COVID-19 era

BackgroundWe have reported the vaccine effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months to 15 years between the 2013/14 and 2018/19 seasons. Younger (6–11 months) and older (6–15 years old) children tended to have lower vaccine effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the recent vaccine can be recommended to all age groups.MethodsThe overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness was assessed from the 2013/14 until the 2020/21 season using a test-negative case-control design based on rapid influenza diagnostic test results. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated by influenza type and by age group (6–11 months, 1–2, 3–5, 6–12, and 13–15 years old) with adjustments including influenza seasons.ResultsA total of 29,400 children (9347, 4435, and 15,618 for influenza A and B, and test-negatives, respectively) were enrolled. The overall vaccine effectiveness against influenza A, A(H1N1)pdm09, and B was significant (44% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41–47], 63% [95 %CI, 51–72], and 37% [95 %CI, 32–42], respectively). The vaccine was significantly effective against influenza A and B, except among children 6 to 11 months against influenza B. The age group with the highest vaccine effectiveness was 1 to 2 years old with both influenza A and B (60% [95 %CI, 55–65] and 52% [95 %CI, 41–61], respectively). Analysis for the 2020/21 season was not performed because no cases were reported.ConclusionsThis is the first report showing influenza vaccine effectiveness by age group in children for several seasons, including immediately before the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) era. The fact that significant vaccine effectiveness was observed in nearly every age group and every season shows that the recent vaccine can still be recommended to children for the upcoming influenza seasons, during and after the COVID-19 era.     

Importance and value of adjuvanted influenza vaccine in the care of older adults from a European perspective – A systematic review of recently published literature on real-world data

BackgroundThere is an urgent need for improved influenza vaccines especially for older adults due to the presence of immunosenescence. It is therefore highly relevant to compare enhanced influenza vaccines with traditional influenza vaccines with respect to their effectiveness.ObjectiveTo compare vaccine efficacy and effectiveness of adjuvanted influenza vaccines (aTIV/aQIV) vs. non-adjuvanted standard-dose (TIV/QIV) and high-dose (TIV-HD/QIV-HD) influenza vaccines regarding influenza-related outcomes in older adults, complementing findings from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)’s systematic review of enhanced seasonal influenza vaccines from February 2020.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Embase and MEDLINE to identify randomised controlled trials, observational studies and systematic reviews, published since ECDC’s systematic review (between 7 February 2020 and 6 September 2021). Included studies were appraised with either the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, ROBINS-I or AMSTAR 2.ResultsEleven analyses from nine real-world evidence (RWE) studies comprising ～53 million participants and assessing the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aTIV vs. TIV, QIV and/or TIV-HD in adults aged ≥65 years over the 2006/07–2008/09 and 2011/12–2019/20 influenza seasons were identified. Nine analyses found that aTIV was significantly more effective than TIV and QIV in reducing influenza-related outcomes by clinical setting and suspected influenza outbreaks (rVE ranging from 7.5% to 25.6% for aTIV vs. TIV and 7.1% to 36.3% for aTIV vs. QIV). Seven analyses found similar effectiveness of aTIV vs. TIV-HD in reducing influenza-related medical encounters, inpatient stays and hospitalisations/emergency room visits. In three analyses, aTIV was significantly more effective than TIV-HD in reducing influenza-related medical encounters and office visits (rVE ranging from 6.6% to 16.6%). Risk of bias of identified studies was moderate to high.ConclusionsOur study suggests that both adjuvanted and high-dose vaccines are effective alternatives for vaccination programmes in older adults and preferable over conventional standard-dose vaccines.     

The impact of new universal child influenza programs in Australia: Vaccine coverage,effectiveness and disease epidemiology in hospitalised children in 2018

BackgroundNew jurisdictionally-based vaccination programs were established providing free quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) for preschool Australian children in 2018. This was in addition to the National Immunisation Program (NIP) funded QIV for Indigenous children and children with comorbid medical conditions. We assessed the impact of this policy change on influenza disease burden and vaccine coverage, as well as report on 2018 vaccine effectiveness in a hospital-based surveillance system.MethodsSubjects were recruited prospectively from twelve PAEDS-FluCAN sentinel hospital sites (April until October 2018). Children aged ≤16 years hospitalised with an acute respiratory illness (ARI) and laboratory-confirmed influenza were considered cases. Hospitalised children with ARI who tested negative for influenza were considered controls. VE estimates were calculated from the adjusted odds ratio of vaccination in cases and controls.ResultsA total of 458 children were hospitalised with influenza: 31.7% were <2 years, 5.0% were Indigenous, and 40.6% had medical comorbidities predisposing to severe influenza. Influenza A was detected in 90.6% of children (A/H1N1: 38.0%; A/H3N2: 3.1%; A/unsubtyped 48.6%). The median length of stay was 2 days (IQR: 1,3) and 8.1% were admitted to ICU. Oseltamivir use was infrequent (16.6%). Two in-hospital deaths occurred (0.45%). 12.0% of influenza cases were vaccinated compared with 36.0% of test-negative controls. Vaccine effectiveness of QIV for preventing influenza hospitalisation was estimated at 78.8% (95%CI: 66.9; 86.4).ConclusionsCompared with 2017 (n = 1268 cases), a significant reduction in severe influenza was observed in Australian children, possibly contributed to by improved vaccine coverage and high vaccine effectiveness. Despite introduction of jurisdictionally-funded preschool programs and NIP-funded vaccine for children with risk factors for severe disease, improved coverage is required to ensure adequate protection against paediatric influenza morbidity and mortality.     

Repeated exposure to an MF-59 adjuvanted quadrivalent subunit influenza vaccine (aQIV) in children: Results of two revaccination studies

BackgroundPediatric adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines induce higher immune responses and have the potential to confer better protection against influenza among young vaccine-naïve children. Limited data describe benefits and risks of repeated administration of adjuvanted influenza vaccines in children. Two revaccination studies assess the safety and immunogenicity of repeated exposure to an MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV; Fluad®) compared to routine non-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV).MethodsChildren previously enrolled in the parent study, who received vaccination with aQIV or nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine (TIV or QIV), were recruited in Season 1 (n = 607) or Season 2 (n = 1601) of the extension trials. Season 1 participants remained in their original randomization groups (aQIV-aQIV or TIV-QIV); Season 2 subjects were re-randomized to either vaccine, resulting in four groups (aQIV-aQIV, aQIV-QIV, QIV-aQIV, or QIV-QIV). All subjects received a single-dose vaccination. Blood samples were taken for immunogenicity assessment prior to vaccination and 21 and 180 days after vaccination. Reactogenicity (Days 1–7) and safety were assessed in all subjects.ResultsHemagglutination inhibition (HI) geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios demonstrated superiority of aQIV revaccination over QIV revaccination for all strains in Season 1 and for A/H1N1, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria in Season 2. Higher HI titers against heterologous influenza strains were observed after aQIV vaccination during both seasons. Mild to moderate severity and short duration reactogenicity was more common in the aQIV than QIV groups, but the overall safety profiles were similar to the parent study.ConclusionThe safety and immunogenicity results from this study demonstrate benefit of aQIV for both priming and revaccination of children aged 12 months to 7 years.     

Lineage-matched versus mismatched influenza B vaccine effectiveness following seasons of marginal influenza B circulation

BackgroundSeveral countries have recently transitioned from the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) to the quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (QIV) in order to outweigh influenza B vaccine-mismatch. However, few studies thus far evaluated its benefits versus the TIV in a systematic manner. Our objective was to compare the QIV VE with lineage-mismatched TIV VE.MethodsWe estimated the 2015–2016, 2017–2018, 2019–2020 end-of season influenza B VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI) among community patients, using the test-negative design. VE was estimated for pre-determined age groups and for moving age intervals of 15 years.ResultsSince 2011–2012 season, alternate seasons in Israel were dominated by influenza B circulation. Compared with the lineage-mismatched TIV used during the 2015–2016 and 2017–2018 seasons, the 2019–2020 QIV showed the highest all-ages VE, with VE estimates of 56.9 (95% CI 30.1 to 73.4), 16.5 (95% CI –22.5 to 43.1) and ?25.8 (95% CI ?85.3 to 14.6) for the 2019–2020, 2017–2018 and 2015–2016 seasons, respectively. The 2019–2020 VE point estimated were the highest for the 0.5–4, 5–17 and 18–44 years age groups and for more 15-year age intervals as compared to the other seasons.ConclusionsOur results support the rapid transition from the TIV to the QIV.     

Post-marketing surveillance of adverse events following immunization with inactivated quadrivalent and trivalent influenza vaccine in health care providers in Western Australia

In 2015, inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) was first introduced into the Australian market. A routine vaccine safety surveillance system in Western Australia was used to conduct post-licensure surveillance of adverse events following immunization with inactivated QIV and trivalent influenza vaccines (TIV) in a sample of 1685 healthcare providers (HCPs). A similar percentage of HCPs who received QIV reported having any reaction seven days post-vaccination as HCPs who received TIV (13.6 vs. 12.8%, respectively; p = 0.66). However, a slightly higher percentage of HCPs who received QIV reported pain or swelling at the injection site as compared to HCPs who received TIV (6.9% vs. 4.2%, respectively; p = 0.02). No serious vaccine-associated adverse events were detected during follow-up of either vaccine. Acknowledging the study limitations, the results of this post-marketing surveillance support the safety of QIV, suggesting there is little difference in the reactogenicity of QIV as compared to TIV.     

Duration of influenza vaccine effectiveness in the elderly in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using large-scale population-based registry data

BackgroundThe immune response to influenza vaccination in the elderly is likely to be lower than that in young adults. Clinical protection may not persist year-round in the elderly. However, the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in the elderly has not been adequately studied, especially in terms of the duration of effectiveness.MethodsWe used a linked database of healthcare administrative claims data and vaccination records maintained by the municipality of a city in Kanto region of Japan. We studied individuals who were aged 65 years or older at baseline and were followed up between April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2020. The duration of influenza vaccine effectiveness by age category was analyzed using a time-dependent piecewise Cox proportional hazard model with time-dependent vaccine status, prior season vaccination and covariates confirmed in the baseline period (age, sex, cancer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, asthma, chronic kidney diseases, and cardiovascular diseases).ResultsWe identified an analysis population of 83,146 individuals, of which 7,401 (8.9%) had experienced influenza and 270 (0.32%) underwent influenza-related hospitalization. Individuals who were vaccinated during the first season (n = 47,338) were older than non-vaccinated individuals (n = 35,808) (average age, 75.8 vs. 74.1 years, respectively). The multivariable analysis showed a lower incidence of influenza in vaccinated individuals (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–0.51; P < 0.001), while the incidence of hospitalization for influenza did not differ significantly by vaccination status (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53–1.18; P = 0.249). Protective effectiveness against incidence was maintained for 4 or 5 months after vaccination in those aged 65–69 and 80-years, 5 months in 70–79 years.ConclusionsOur study identified moderate vaccine effectiveness in preventing the incidence of influenza in the Japanese elderly. Vaccine effectiveness showed a trend of gradual attenuation. Clinicians should suspect influenza infection even in those vaccinated, especially in elderly individuals who had received vaccination more than 4 or 5 months previously.     

Influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza in a vaccine-mismatched influenza B-dominant season

BackgroundThe 2017–2018 influenza season in Israel was characterized by the predominance of influenza B Yamagata, with a lesser circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2). We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the inactivated influenza vaccine which was selected for use that season.MethodsEnd-of-season VE and 95% confidence intervals (CI) against laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI) were estimated by means of the test-negative design. Age-specific VE analysis was carried out using a moving age interval.ResultsSpecimen were obtained from 1,453 community ILI patients; 610 (42.0%) were influenza-positive, among which 69.7% were B, 17.2% A(H1N1)pdm09 and 13.4% A(H3N2). A 98.6% of molecularly characterized influenza B belonged to the Yamagata lineage. Of the sampled individuals, 1320 were suitable for VE analysis. Of those vaccinated, 90.6% received the inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) containing a Victoria lineage influenza B-like virus. VE against influenza A differed by age, with the highest VE of 72.9% (95%CI 31.9–89.2%) observed in children 0.5–14 years old, while all ages VE was 46.6% (95%CI 10.4–68.2%). All ages VE against influenza B was 23.2% (95%CI −10.1–46.4%) with age-specific analysis showing non-significant VE estimates. Utilizing a moving age interval of 15 years, afforded a detailed age-specific insight into influenza VE against the influenza viruses circulating during the 2017–2018 season.ConclusionsThe moderate-high 2017–2018 influenza A VE among children and adolescents, supports seasonal influenza vaccination at a young age. The low VE against influenza B in Israel, is most likely the result of influenza B/TIV-mismatch.     

Immunogenicity and safety of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BackgroundA quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) includes two A strains (A/H1N1, A/H3N2) and two B lineages (B/Victoria, B/Yamagata). The presence of both B lineages eliminate potential B lineage mismatch of trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) with the circulating strain.MethodsElectronic database searches of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), Scopus and Web of Science were conducted for articles published until June 30, 2015 inclusive. Articles were limited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults using inactivated intramuscular vaccine and published in English language only. Summary estimates of immunogenicity (by seroprotection and seroconversion rates) and adverse events outcomes were compared between QIV and TIV, using a risk ratio (RR). Studies were pooled using inverse variance weights with a random effect model and the I² statistic was used to estimate heterogeneity.ResultsA total of five RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. For immunogenicity outcomes, QIV had similar efficacy for the three common strains; A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and the B lineage included in the TIV. QIV also showed superior efficacy for the B lineage not included in the TIV; pooled seroprotection RR of 1.14 (95%CI: 1.03–1.25, p = 0.008) and seroconversion RR of 1.78 (95%CI: 1.24–2.55, p = 0.002) for B/Victoria, and pooled seroprotection RR of 1.12 (95%CI: 1.02–1.22, p = 0.01) and seroconversion RR of 2.11 (95%CI: 1.51–2.95, p < 0.001) for B/Yamagata, respectively. No significant differences were found between QIV and TIV for aggregated local and systemic adverse events within 7 days post-vaccination. There were no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported for either QIV or TIV. Compared to TIV, injection-site pain was more common for QIV, with a pooled RR of 1.18 (95%CI: 1.03–1.35, p = 0.02).ConclusionIn adults, inactivated QIV was as immunogenic as seasonal TIV, with equivalent efficacy against the shared three strains included in TIV, and a superior immunogenicity against the non-TIV B lineage.     

Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent and tetravalent influenza vaccines in children and adolescents

BackgroundChildren and adolescents are susceptible to influenza. Vaccination is the most important strategy for preventing influenza, yet there are few studies on the immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (QIV) containing two A strains (H1N1 and H3N2) and two B lineages (Victoria and Yamagata). Therefore, to further clarify the immunogenicity and safety of QIV in children and adolescents, a meta-analysis was performed to provide a reference for the development of influenza prevention strategies.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published as of February 12, 2019. Random clinical trials comparing the immunogenicity and safety of QIV and TIV among children and adolescents were selected. The main outcomes were comparisons of immunogenicity (seroprotection rate [SPR] and seroconversion rate [SCR] and adverse events using risk ratios (RRs). The meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models.ResultsAmong the 6 months up to 3 years group, QIV showed a higher SPR for B lineages than for TIV-B/Yamagata, with pooled RRs of 3.07 (95% CI: 2.58–3.66) and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01–1.11), respectively. For the 3 years through 18 years, QIV had a higher SCR and SPR for the Yamagata lineage than for TIV-B/Victoria, with pooled RRs of 2.30 (95% CI: 1.83–2.88) and 1.16 (95% CI: 1.03–1.30), respectively. Compared to TIV-B/Yamagata, a higher SCR and SPR for the Victoria lineage was found for QIV, with RRs of 3.09 (95% CI: 1.99–4.78) and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.22–2.41), respectively. Regarding adverse events, only pain was more frequently reported for QIV than TIV ; the RR was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.02–1.17).ConclusionsThe immunogenicity of QIV for common ingredients was similar to that of TIV, but the former exhibited significantly higher immunogenicity for the unique lineage. QIV also had the same reliable safety as TIV.     

Safety of recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine compared to inactivated influenza vaccine in Chinese adults: An observational study

BackgroundRecombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) has been in use in US adults since 2013. This study evaluated the safety of quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4, Flublok® Quadrivalent, Sanofi Pasteur) compared with standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV4) in self-identified Chinese adults at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).MethodsThis study evaluated adults aged 18–64 years within KPNC during the 2018–2019 influenza season who self-identified as Chinese (NCT03694392). We compared the rates of prespecified diagnoses of interest in the emergency department and inpatient settings as done in prior influenza studies, for three risk intervals: 0–2 days, 0–13 days, and 0–41 days following influenza vaccination, as well as number of deaths within 0–180 days after vaccination. We estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression adjusted for sex, age group, presence of comorbidities, and same-day concomitant vaccination.ResultsComparing 15,574 adults who received RIV4 with 27,110 who received SD-IIV4, there was no statistically significant difference in the prespecified diagnoses of interest and deaths between the 2 groups. There were 35 deaths total, none of which were considered to be related to influenza vaccination.ConclusionsThis study did not identify any safety concerns regarding RIV4 use among 18–64-year-olds who self-identified as Chinese. This study supports the safety of RIV4 vaccine in this population.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccines in Beijing: A modeling analysis

BackgroundSince 2007, Beijing has offered a free trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) for residents aged ≥ 60 years and school students. The quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) was administered to school children in 2018 and will be administered to elderly adults in the future. In addition, health care workers (HCWs) who are involved in the prevention and control of COVID-19 were included in the program in 2020. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive list of combined strategies of TIV and QIV for school children, elderly adults, and HCWs to identify the most cost-effective strategy.MethodsA decision tree was developed to compare 1-year outcomes of TIV vs. QIV in three risk groups: school children, elderly adults, and HCWs. The outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were developed to assess the robustness of the results.ResultsFrom the perspective of society, this study found that the introduction of QIVs can be cost-effective for any and all targeted groups with a willingness-to-pay threshold of 3-fold GDP per capita. Among all programs, program H (all school children, elderly adults, and HCWs received the QIV) showed a 79% probability of being cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 13,580 (95% CI: 13,294, 13,867) US$/QALY and was the preferred option in the base case scenario.ConclusionThe introduction of QIVs to school children, elderly adults, or HCWs is likely to be cost-effective, either separately or collectively. The introduction of QIV to school children, elderly adults, and health care workers simultaneously showed the highest probability of being cost-effective and was the preferred option.     

Cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine for elderly population in China

BackgroundInfluenza-associated excess death occurred most in the elderly. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) versus trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) for prevention of influenza infection among elderly population in China.MethodsA decision-analytic model was developed to compare 1-year clinical and economic outcomes of three influenza vaccination options (no vaccination, TIV, and QIV) in a hypothetical cohort of Chinese elderly aged 69 years. Outcome measures included cost, influenza infection rate, influenza-related mortality rate, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) loss, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the uncertainty of model inputs.ResultsBase-case results showed no vaccination was dominated (more costly at higher QALY loss) by TIV and QIV. QIV was more costly (USD56.29 versus USD54.28) with lower influenza infection rate (0.608 versus 0.623), mortality rate (0.00199 versus 0.00204), and QALY loss (0.01213 versus 0.01243) than TIV. QIV was cost-effective compared to TIV with ICER of 6,700 USD/QALY below the willingness-to-pay threshold (29,580 USD/QALY). One-way sensitivity analysis found the cost-effectiveness of QIV was subject to the relative risk of vaccine effectiveness of QIV versus TIV, and TIV would be cost-effective if the relative risk was below 1.05. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, the probabilities of QIV, TIV, and no vaccination to be cost-effective were 86.3%, 13.7%, and 0%, respectively.ConclusionQIV appears to be a cost-effective option compared to TIV and no influenza vaccination for elderly population in China.     

End of season influenza vaccine effectiveness in primary care in adults and children in the United Kingdom in 2018/19

2018/19 was the first season of introduction of a newly licensed adjuvanted influenza vaccine (aTIV) for adults aged 65 years and over and the sixth season in the roll-out of a childhood influenza vaccination programme with a quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The season saw mainly A(H1N1)pdm09 and latterly A(H3N2) circulation.End-of-season adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) estimates against laboratory confirmed influenza infection in primary care were calculated using the test negative case control method adjusting for key confounders. End-of-season aVE was 44.3% (95% CI: 26.8, 57.7) against all laboratory-confirmed influenza; 45.7% (95% CI: 26.0, 60.1) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and 35.1% (95% CI: −3.7,59.3) against A(H3N2). Overall aVE was 49.9% (95%CI: −13.7, 77.9) for all those ≥ 65 years of age and 62.0% (95% CI: 3.4, 85.0) for those who received aTIV. Overall aVE for 2–17 year olds receiving LAIV was 48.6% (95% CI: −4.4, 74.7). The paper provides evidence of overall significant influenza VE in 2018/19, most notably against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, however, as seen in 2017/18, there was reduced, non-significant VE against A(H3N2). aTIV provided significant protection for those 65 years of age and over.     

Immunogenicity and safety of MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine versus standard and alternate B strain MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines in older adults

ObjectiveEvaluate whether adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) elicits a noninferior immune response compared with a licensed adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV-1; Fluad™) and aTIV-2 containing an alternate B strain, examine whether aQIV had immunological superiority for the B strain absent from aTIV comparators, and evaluate reactogenicity and safety among adults ≥65 years.MethodsIn a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, adults ≥65 years were randomized 2:1:1 to vaccination with aQIV (n = 889), aTIV-1 (n = 445), or aTIV-2 (n = 444) during the 2017-2018 influenza season. Immunogenicity was assessed by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay conducted on serum samples collected before vaccination and 21 days after vaccination for homologous influenza strains.ResultsaQIV met non-inferiority criteria for geometric mean titer ratios (GMT ratios) and seroconversion rate (SCR) differences against aTIV. The upper bounds of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for GMT ratios were <1.5 for all 4 strains (A/H1N1 = 1.27, A/H3N2 = 1.09, B-Yamagata = 1.08, B-Victoria = 1.08). The upper bounds of the 95% CI of the SCR differences were <10% for all 4 strains (A/H1N1 = 7.76%, A/H3N2 = 4.96%, B-Yamagata = 3.27%, B-Victoria = 2.55%). aQIV also met superiority criteria (upper bound of 95% CI for GMT ratios <1 and SCR differences <0) for B strain absent from aTIV comparators (B-Yamagata GMT ratio = 0.70, SCR difference = −8.81%; B-Victoria GMT ratio = 0.78, SCR difference = −8.11%). aQIV and aTIV vaccines were immunogenic and well-tolerated. The immunological benefit of aQIV was also demonstrated in age subgroups 65–74 years, 75–84 years, and ≥85 years and in those with high comorbidity risk scores. Reactogenicity profiles were generally comparable.ConclusionaQIV induces a similar immune response as the licensed aTIV vaccine against homologous influenza strains and has a comparable reactogenicity and safety profile. Superior immunogenicity against the additional B strain was observed, indicating that aQIV could provide a broader protection than aTIV against influenza in older adults (NCT03314662).     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of switching from a trivalent to a quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in the Peruvian immunisation programme

BackgroundSeasonal influenza is an acute respiratory infection mostly caused by type A and B influenza viruses. The severe form of the infection can be life-threatening and lead to a significant burden. Vaccination is the most efficient way of preventing influenza infections and limit this burden.ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from a trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) to a quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) in the vaccination programme in Peru, and to evaluate the health and economic impact of reaching the vaccination coverage rate targeted by the Ministry of Health.MethodsA decision-analytic static cost-effectiveness model, was adapted to the Peruvian setting under both payer and societal perspectives.ResultsA switch from TIV to QIV would prevent 29,126 additional cases (including 12,815 consultations), 54 hospitalisations, and 23 deaths related to influenza, mostly in the population <2 years-old and >60 years-old. This would lead to a saving of US $505,206 under the payer perspective, that would partially offset the investment necessary to introduce QIV into the immunisation programme. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $16,649 per QALYs gained. The main drivers of the model results were vaccine efficacy against influenza B viruses, degree of match, vaccines prices and proportion of cases attributable to influenza B. The robustness of the results seems satisfactory as QIV has the probability of being a cost-effective strategy of 83.8% (considering a threshold of three GDP per capita). Reaching the coverage targeted by the Ministry of Health would result in health benefits and disease management savings, and lower ICERs.ConclusionIntroducing QIV instead of TIV in the Peruvian immunisation programme is expected to be a cost-effective strategy, especially in younger children and the elderly. The benefit of QIV would be even more important if the coverage targeted by the Ministry of Health would be reached in the most vulnerable groups.