Dataset Information

Safety of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine Compared to Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Adults: An Observational Study.

ABSTRACT: Background:Recombinant trivalent influenza vaccine (RIV3) was initially licensed in 2013 and approved for all adults??18 in 2014. This study evaluated the safety of RIV3 compared with trivalent standard-dose, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Methods:This Phase 4 observational, postmarketing safety study included persons??18 years vaccinated with RIV3 or IIV3 in KPNC during the 2015-2016 influenza season. We compared (1) the rates of prespecified diagnoses of interest (Guillain-Barré Syndrome, pericarditis, pleural effusion, narcolepsy/cataplexy, asthma, acute hypersensitivity reactions, and fever) during various postvaccination risk intervals as well as (2) all-cause hospitalization and mortality 0-180 days after vaccination. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, month of vaccination, and concomitant receipt of other vaccinations. Results:Comparing the 21?976 persons who received RIV3 with the 283?683 who received IIV3, there were statistically significant differences in the prespecified diagnoses of interest between the 2 groups. Specifically, RIV3 vaccination was associated with fewer fever diagnoses during the 0-41 days postvaccination (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14-0.86). Also, RIV3 was associated with fewer all-cause hospitalizations during the 0-180 days postvaccination (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.73), which was mostly related to pregnancy-related hospitalizations in IIV3 recipients. There were no serious adverse events or deaths related to RIV3. Conclusions:This study did not identify any safety concerns regarding the use of RIV3 in adults.

SUBMITTER: Hansen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7316363 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine Compared to Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Adults: An Observational Study.

Hansen John J Goddard Kristin K Timbol Julius J Zhang Lea L Lewis Ned N Dunkle Lisa L Izikson Ruvim R Klein Nicola P NP

Open forum infectious diseases 20200520 6

<h4>Background</h4>Recombinant trivalent influenza vaccine (RIV3) was initially licensed in 2013 and approved for all adults ≥18 in 2014. This study evaluated the safety of RIV3 compared with trivalent standard-dose, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).<h4>Methods</h4>This Phase 4 observational, postmarketing safety study included persons ≥18 years vaccinated with RIV3 or IIV3 in KPNC during the 2015-2016 influenza season. We compared (1) the rate ...[more]

PMID: 32617368

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionVaccination is a critical tool for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza illnesses. Coadministration of the COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2, with seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (SIIV) can provide substantial benefits, including streamlining vaccine delivery.MethodsIn this phase 3 study, healthy 18- to 64-year-olds who had received three previous doses of BNT162b2 were randomized (1:1) to the coadministration group (month 0, BNT162b2 + SIIV; month 1, placebo) or the separate-administration group (month 0, placebo + SIIV; month 1, BNT162b2). The primary immunogenicity objective was to demonstrate that the immune responses elicited by BNT162b2 and SIIV [measured by full-length S-binding immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and strain-specific hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI) titers against four influenza strains 1 month post-vaccination, respectively] when coadministered were noninferior to those elicited by either vaccine administered alone, based on a prespecified 1.5-fold noninferiority margin [lower bound 95% CI for geometric mean ratio (GMR) > 0.67]. Reactogenicity and adverse event (AE) rates were evaluated.ResultsRandomized participants who received study vaccination (N = 1128; coadministration group, n = 564; separate-administration group, n = 564) had a median age of 39 years. Model-adjusted GMRs for coadministration to separate administration were 0.83 (95% CI 0.77, 0.89) for full-length S-binding IgG levels and 0.89-1.00 (lower bound of all 95% CIs > 0.67) for the four influenza strain-specific HAI titers, with all endpoints achieving the prespecified noninferiority criterion. Reactogenicity events were mostly mild or moderate when BNT162b2 was coadministered with SIIV. Serious AEs were reported in < 1% of participants within 1 month after any vaccination; none were considered vaccine-related.ConclusionsBNT162b2 coadministered with SIIV elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those elicited by BNT162b2 alone and SIIV alone, and BNT162b2 had an acceptable safety profile when coadministered with SIIV. The results of this study support the coadministration of BNT162b2 and SIIV in adults.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05310084.

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza infection is a highly preventable transmissible viral disease associated with mild upper respiratory symptoms and more severe conditions such as lethal pneumonia. Studies have shown that a broader spectrum influenza vaccine could reduce influenza's burden of disease in low- and middle-income countries. A considerable number of systematic reviews reported that quadrivalent influenza vaccines are considered more effective compared to trivalent vaccines, hence, there is a need for an overview in order to synthesize the current evidence pertaining to the comparison between quadrivalent and trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines.ObjectiveThe aim was to summarize the evidence from systematic reviews that investigated the immunogenicity and safety of the Influenza's inactivated quadrivalent vaccine (QIV) compared to the trivalent vaccine (TIV), in the general population.MethodsWe searched articles up to December 2022 at: Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS. The search strategy was conducted following the PICO model. We included systematic reviews comparing the primary outcomes of immunogenicity (seroprotection rate and seroconversion rate) and adverse events using risk ratios. The AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS were used for quality assessments, and GRADE was used for evidence certainty assessments.FindingsWe included five systematic reviews, totalling 47,740 participants. The Quadrivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (QIV) exhibited enhanced immunogenicity in the context of B-lineage mismatch when compared to the Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (TIV). While the safety profile of QIV was found to be comparable to that of TIV, the QIV showed a higher incidence of solicited local pain among children and adolescents, as well as an increased frequency of local adverse events within the adult population.ConclusionOur findings suggest that the QIV provides a superior immunogenicity response compared to the TIV in all age groups evaluated, especially when a lineage mismatch occurred. The safety of QIV was considered similar to the TIV, with no serious or systemic solicited or unsolicited adverse events; tough pain at the injection site was greater for QIV. We recommend caution owing to the high risk of bias in the selection process and no protocol registration.

Project description:BackgroundTwo antigenically distinct influenza B lineages have co-circulated since the 1980s, yet inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs) include strains of influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and only one influenza B from either the Victoria or Yamagata lineage. This means that exposure to B-lineage viruses mismatched to the TIV is frequent, reducing vaccine protection. Formulations including both influenza B lineages could improve protection against circulating influenza B viruses. We assessed a candidate inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) containing both B lineages versus TIV in adults in stable health.MethodsA total of 4659 adults were randomized 5:5:5:5:3 to receive one dose of QIV (one of three lots) or a TIV containing either a B/Victoria or B/Yamagata strain. Hemagglutination-inhibition assays were performed pre-vaccination and 21-days after vaccination. Lot-to-lot consistency of QIV was assessed based on geometric mean titers (GMT). For QIV versus TIV, non-inferiority against the three shared strains was demonstrated if the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit for the GMT ratio was ≤1.5 and for the seroconversion difference was ≤10.0%; superiority of QIV versus TIV for the alternate B lineage was demonstrated if the 95% CI lower limit for the GMT ratio was > 1.0 and for the seroconversion difference was > 0%. Reactogenicity and safety profile of each vaccine were assessed. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01204671.ResultsConsistent immunogenicity was demonstrated for the three QIV lots. QIV was non-inferior to TIV for the shared vaccine strains, and was superior for the added alternate-lineage B strains. QIV elicited robust immune responses against all four vaccine strains; the seroconversion rates were 77.5% (A/H1N1), 71.5% (A/H3N2), 58.1% (B/Victoria), and 61.7% (B/Yamagata). The reactogenicity and safety profile of QIV was consistent with TIV.ConclusionsQIV provided superior immunogenicity for the additional B strain compared with TIV, without interfering with antibody responses to the three shared antigens. The additional antigen did not appear to alter the safety profile of QIV compared with TIV. This suggests that the candidate QIV is a viable alternative to TIV for use in adults, and could potentially improve protection against influenza B.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov: NCT01204671/114269.

Project description:Two phylogenetic lineages of influenza B virus coexist and circulate in the human population (B/Yamagata and B/Victoria) but only one B-strain is included in each seasonal vaccine. Mismatch regularly occurs between the recommended and circulating B-strain. Inclusion of both lineages in vaccines may offer better protection against influenza.This study (NCT00714285) assessed the immunogenicity and safety of two candidate quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV) containing two A- and two B-strains (one from each lineage) in adults (18-60 years). Subjects were randomized and stratified by age to receive either QIV (non-adjuvanted or low-dose adjuvanted [LD QIV-AS]) or trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV, non-adjuvanted or low-dose adjuvanted [LD TIV-AS]), N?=?105 in all treatment groups. The study evaluated the statistical non-inferiority of the immunological response elicited by QIV and LD QIV-AS versus TIV and LD TIV-AS and the statistical superiority of the response elicited by the quadrivalent vaccines against the B-strain (B/Jiangsu) not included in the TIV.Pre-defined non-inferiority and superiority criteria were reached for both QIVs compared to the TIVs. On Day 21 in all vaccine groups SCRs were ?54.8%, SPRs ?88.5% and SCFs ?5.4 for the A strains and B strain included in all vaccines (B/Malaysia). This fulfilled the European (CHMP) and the US (CBER) licensing criteria for the assessment of influenza vaccines in adults (CHMP criteria: SCR?>?40%, SPR?>?70%, SCF?>?2; CBER criteria: LL of 95% CI for SPR???70% or SCR???40%). Only the QIVs met the CHMP and CBER criteria for the B/Jiangsu strain. In the QIV and LD-QIV-AS groups, the SCFs were 9.1 and 8.1, respectively and the SPRs were 98.1% and 95.2%, whereas for the TIV and LD-TIV-AS groups, the SCFs were 2.3 and 2.5, respectively, and the SPRs were 75.0% and 63.8%, with the LLs of the 95% CI <70% for SPR and <40% for SCR.Addition of a fourth strain did not impact the immune response elicited by the three original strains contained in the TIV. A clear immunological benefit was seen with the QIV formulation for the second B-strain, indicating that quadrivalent vaccines could provide broader protection against influenza.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00714285.

Project description:The World Health Organization influenza forecast now includes an influenza B strain from each of the influenza B lineages (B/Yamagata and B/Victoria) for inclusion in seasonal influenza vaccines. Traditional trivalent influenza vaccines include an influenza B strain from one lineage, but because two influenza B lineages frequently co-circulate, the effectiveness of trivalent vaccines may be reduced in seasons of influenza B vaccine-mismatch. Thus, quadrivalent vaccines may potentially reduce the burden of influenza compared with trivalent vaccines. In this Phase III, open-label study, we assessed the immunogenicity and safety of Southern Hemisphere inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Fluarix™ Tetra) in Brazilian adults (NCT02369341). The primary objective was to assess hemagglutination-inhibition antibody responses against each vaccine strain 21 days after vaccination in adults (aged ≥18-60 years) and older adults (aged >60 years). Solicited adverse events for four days post-vaccination, and unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events for 21 days post-vaccination were also assessed. A total of 63 adults and 57 older adults received one dose of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine at the beginning of the 2015 Southern Hemisphere influenza season. After vaccination, in adults and older adults, the hemagglutination-inhibition titers fulfilled the European licensure criteria for immunogenicity. In adults, the seroprotection rates with HI titer ≥1:40 were 100% (A/H1N1), 98.4% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria); in older adults were 94.7% (A/H1N1), 96.5% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria). Pain was the most common solicited local adverse events in adults (27/62) and in older adults (13/57), and the most common solicited general adverse events in adults was myalgia (9/62), and in older adults were myalgia and arthralgia (both 2/57). Unsolicited adverse events were reported by 11/63 adults and 10/57 older adults. The study showed that inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine was immunogenic and well-tolerated in Brazilian adults and older adults.

Project description:Abstract Background More effective influenza vaccines are needed to prevent influenza and its complications. Recombinant influenza vaccines may offer better protection than traditional egg-based vaccines. Using a cluster randomized design to estimate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of Flublok Quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) vs. standard dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV4), we separately reported that RIV4 provided significantly better protection against primary outcome of confirmed influenza in adults 50–64 yrs in the 2018–20 moderately severe influenza seasons. Here we report the rVE against the secondary and exploratory outcomes of hospitalized influenza-related outcomes. Methods We randomized 66 facilities within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) to routinely administer RIV4 or SD-IIV4 to adults, alternating vaccine formulations weekly by facility during the influenza season (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03694392). Hospitalized cases of PCR-confirmed influenza, community-acquired pneumonia, and cardio-respiratory events were prespecified as secondary in 50–64 yrs and exploratory in 18–49 yrs. We estimated the relative hazard ratio (rHR) using Cox regression on a calendar timeline, adjusting for age, sex, and race, using facility-specific stabilized propensity scores. We calculated rVE as (1–rHR) x 100%. Results During the 2018–19 and 2019–20 seasons, the study consisted of 1,630,328 vaccinees 18–64 yrs (RIV4=632,962; SD-IIV4=997,366), and included 95 hospitalized influenza cases after RIV4 and 153 after SD-IIV4 among 50–64 yrs (Table 1). RIV4 vs. SD-IIV4 was not significantly more protective against hospitalized influenza-related outcomes in adults 50–64 yrs or 18–49 yrs. Conclusion While this large cluster randomized study found that RIV4 vs. SD-IIV4 reduced the risk of lab-confirmed influenza in adults 50–64 yrs across 2 influenza seasons, RIV4 and SD-IIV4 performed similarly against hospitalized influenza-related outcomes. Evaluating influenza-related hospitalizations during influenza seasons when more hospital outcomes occur may help to better understand the relative effectiveness of recombinant versus standard inactivated influenza vaccines against severe disease. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Dataset Information

Safety of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine Compared to Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Adults: An Observational Study.

Publications

Safety of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine Compared to Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Adults: An Observational Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets