Search

Introduction: A surge of human influenza A(H7N9) cases began in 2016 in China from an antigenically distinct lineage. Data are needed about the safety and immunogenicity of 2013 and 2017 A(H7N9) inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) and the effects of AS03 adjuvant, prime-boost interval, and priming effects of 2013 and 2017 A(H7N9) IIVs., Methods: Healthy adults (n = 180), ages 19-50 years, were enrolled into this partially blinded, randomized, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 vaccination groups evaluating homologous versus heterologous prime-boost strategies with 2 different boost intervals (21 vs 120 days) and 2 dosages (3.75 or 15 μg of hemagglutinin) administered with or without AS03 adjuvant. Reactogenicity, safety, and immunogenicity measured by hemagglutination inhibition and neutralizing antibody titers were assessed., Results: Two doses of A(H7N9) IIV were well tolerated, and no safety issues were identified. Although most participants had injection site and systemic reactogenicity, these symptoms were mostly mild to moderate in severity; injection site reactogenicity was greater in vaccination groups receiving adjuvant. Immune responses were greater after an adjuvanted second dose, and with a longer interval between prime and boost. The highest hemagglutination inhibition geometric mean titer (95% confidence interval) observed against the 2017 A(H7N9) strain was 133.4 (83.6-212.6) among participants who received homologous, adjuvanted 3.75 µg + AS03/2017 doses with delayed boost interval., Conclusions: Administering AS03 adjuvant with the second H7N9 IIV dose and extending the boost interval to 4 months resulted in higher peak antibody responses. These observations can broadly inform strategic approaches for pandemic preparedness. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03589807., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . E. J. A. has consulted for Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, Janssen, Moderna, and Medscape, and his institution has received funds to conduct clinical research unrelated to this manuscript from MedImmune, Regeneron, PaxVax, Pfizer, GSK, Merck, Sanofi-Pasteur, Janssen, and Micron. He has served on a safety monitoring board for Kentucky BioProcessing, Inc. and Sanofi Pasteur. He has served on a data adjudication board for WCG and ACI Clinical. His institution has also received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines. He is currently employed by Moderna, Inc. N. R. has consulted for EMMES, Moderna, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus, and ICON, and her institution receives funds to conduct clinical research unrelated to this manuscript from Pfizer, Sanofi, Quidel, Lilly, Immorna, Vaccine Company, and Merck as well as NIH to conduct translational clinical studies and interventional clinical trials. P. W. has consulted for EMMES and Pfizer and her institution has received funds to conduct clinical research unrelated to this manuscript from Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Kline, Sanofi-Pasteur, and Gilead as well as NIH. C. A. R.'s institution has received funds to conduct clinical research unrelated to this manuscript from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, BioFire Inc, GSK, MedImmune, Janssen, Merck, Moderna, Novavax, PaxVax, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Pasteur. She is co-inventor of patented respiratory syncytial virus vaccine technology, which has been licensed to Meissa Vaccines, Inc. C. M. K.'s institution has received funds to conduct clinical research unrelated to this manuscript from the CDC, Pfizer, Merck, and the NIH to conduct clinical trials of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. V. R. is currently employed by Pfizer, Inc., and works in vaccine clinical research unrelated to the current manuscript. This material reflects the personal views of the author and may not reflect the views of her current employer. M. J. M. reported these potential competing interests: laboratory research and clinical trials contracts for vaccines or MAB with Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi; contract funding from USG/HHS/BARDA for research specimen characterization and repository; research grant funding from USG/HHS/NIH for vaccine and MAB clinical trials; personal fees for Scientific Advisory Board service from Merck, Meissa Vaccines, Inc., and Pfizer. EBW has received funding support from Pfizer, Moderna, Sequiris, Najit Technologies Inc, and Clinetic for the conduct of clinical trials and clinical research. E. B. W. has served as an advisor to Vaxcyte and consultant to ILiAD biotechnologies. A. C. S.'s institution has received funds to conduct clinical research unrelated to this manuscript from NIH, HIV Vaccine Trials Network, COVID Vaccine Prevention Network, International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, Crucell/Janssen, Moderna, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Pasteur. S. K.'s institution has received funds to conduct clinical research and vaccine trials unrelated to this manuscript from the CDC, Pfizer, Meissa, Emergent BioSolutions, and the NIH. I. Y. reported being a member of the NIAID/COVPN mRNA-1273 Study Group and her institution received funding to conduct clinical research from NIH, Gates Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pfizer, and Moderna outside the submitted work. She has consulted for Merck, Sanofi-Pasteur, and UptoDate. S. E. F. has received funding to conduct research from Novartis, Moderna, Janssen, Pfizer, and Bavarian Nordic and is a member of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network safety monitoring board. G. A. has received funding to conduct research from Bavarian Nordic. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Influenza A (H7N9) has caused multiple disease waves with evidence of strain diversification. Optimal influenza A (H7N9) prime-boost vaccine strategies are unknown., Methods: We recruited participants who had received monovalent inactivated A/Shanghai/2/2013 (H7N9) vaccine (MIV) approximately 5 years earlier, as follows: MIV with MF59 (MF59 × 2 group), MIV with AS03 (AS03 × 2 group), unadjuvanted MIV (No Adj group), MIV with MF59 or AS03 followed by unadjuvanted MIV (Adjx1 group), and A/H7-naive (unprimed group). Participants were randomized to receive 1 dose of AS03-adjuvanted or unadjuvanted A/Hong Kong/125/2017 (H7N9) MIV and were followed for safety and immunogenicity using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and neutralizing antibody assays., Results: We enrolled 304 participants: 153 received the adjuvanted boost and 151 received the unadjuvanted boost. At 21 days postvaccination, the proportion of participants with HAI antibody titers against the boosting vaccine strain of ≥40 in the adjuvanted and unadjuvanted arms, respectively, were 88% and 49% in MF59 × 2 group, 89% and 75% in AS03 × 2 group, 59% and 20% in No Adj group, 94% and 55% in Adjx1group, and 9% and 11% in unprimed group., Conclusions: Serologic responses to a heterologous A(H7N9) MIV boost were highest in participants primed and boosted with adjuvant-containing regimens., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03738241., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . I. Y.’s institution received funding to conduct clinical research unrelated to this manuscript from Moderna and Pfizer; and I. Y. consults for Merck and Sanofi-Pasteur. P. W. has received research funding unrelated to this manuscript from Pfizer and Sanofi; and has consulted for Pfizer. C. B. C. serves as a consultant to Pfizer, Moderna, GSK, and Vir. K. M. E. serves as consultant to Bionet and IBM; and member of the Data Safety and Monitoring Boards for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, and Roche. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose of Review: The successes of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines have accelerated the development of mRNA vaccines against other respiratory pathogens. The aim of this review is to highlight COVID-19 mRNA vaccine advances and provide an update on the progress of mRNA vaccine development against other respiratory pathogens., Recent Findings: The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines demonstrated effectiveness in preventing severe COVID-19 and death. H7N9 and H10N8 avian influenza mRNA vaccines have demonstrated safety and immunogenicity in phase 1 clinical trials. Numerous seasonal influenza mRNA vaccines are in phase 1-3 clinical trials. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) mRNA vaccines have progressed to phase 2-3 clinical trials in adults and a phase 1 clinical trial in children. A combined human metapneumovirus and parainfluenza-3 mRNA vaccines was found to be well tolerated and immunogenic in a phase 1 trial among adults and trials are being conducted among children. Clinical trials of mRNA vaccines combining antigens from multiple respiratory viruses are underway., Summary: The development of mRNA vaccines against respiratory viruses has progressed rapidly in recent years. Promising vaccine candidates are moving through the clinical development pathway to test their efficacy in preventing disease against respiratory viral pathogens., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited data are available regarding the immunogenicity of high-dose influenza vaccine among persons with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis (MBL)., Methods: A prospective pilot study of humoral immune responses to 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (HD IIV; Fluzone® High-Dose; Sanofi Pasteur) was conducted among individuals with MBL and previously untreated CLL. Serum hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titers were measured at baseline and Day 28 after vaccination; seroprotection and seroconversion rates were determined. Memory B cell responses were assessed by B-cell enzyme-linked immune absorbent spotassays., Results: Thirty subjects (17 CLL and 13 MBL) were included. Median age was 69.5 years. Day 28 seroprotection rates for the cohort were 19/30 (63.3%) for A/H1N1; 21/23 (91.3%) for A/H3N2; and 13/30 (43.3%) for influenza B. Those with MBL achieved higher day 28 HAI geometric mean titers (54.1 [4.9, 600.1] vs. 12.1 [1.3, 110.1]; p = 0.01) and higher Day 28 seroprotection rates (76.9% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.002) against the influenza B-vaccine strain virus than those with CLL., Conclusions: Immunogenicity of the HD IIV3 in patients with CLL and MBL is lower than reported in healthy adults. Immunogenicity to influenza B was greater in those with MBL than CLL., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JAW, DEG, KMG, and TGC have no conflicts of interest to disclose. SAP: Research funding has been provided to the institution from Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma for clinical studies in which Sameer A. Parikh is a principal investigator. Sameer A. Parikh has also participated in Advisory Board meetings of Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie. (He was not personally compensated for his participation.) TDS: Research funding has been provided to the institution from Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck. NEK: Research funding from: Acerta Pharma, Bristol Meyer Squib, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, MEI Pharma, Sunesis,and Abbvie. DSMC (Data Safety Monitoring Committee) for Agios Pharm, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cytomx Therapeutics, Morpho-sys and Rigel. Advisory Board for: Cytomx Therapy, Pharmacyclics, Dava oncology, Juno Theraputics, Astra Zeneca and Oncotracker. RBK has received research funding from Merck Research Laboratories to study waning immune responses to mumps vaccine. GAP and RBK hold a patent related to vaccinia peptide vaccines. WD: research funding from Merck, DTRM pharma, Astrazenica, Abbvie and Mundi Pharma in which WD is a PI for these research studies. WD has participated Advisory board of Alexion, Merck, Octapharma and MEI pharma (no personal compensation for participation). SSK is inventor on patents in the field of CART cell therapy that are licensed to Novartis, Humanigen, and Mettefoge. SSK has received research funding from Novartis, Kite, Gilead, Juno, Celgene, Tolero, Humanigen, Sunesis, Morphosys, and Lentigen. SSK has participated on advisory boards for Humanigen, Kite, and Calibr. GAP is the chair of a Safety Evaluation Committee for novel investigational vaccine trials being conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. GAP offers consultative advice on vaccine development to Merck & Co. Inc., Avianax, Adjuvance, Valneva, Medicago, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Dynavax, and Emergent Biosolutions. GAP and RBK hold a patent related to vaccinia peptide vaccines. These activities have been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and are conducted in compliance with Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest policies., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Older adults are disproportionately affected by influenza morbidity and mortality. In most high income countries, influenza vaccine policies target persons age ≥65 years for influenza vaccination. Many low-resource settings do not utilize seasonal influenza vaccination. Barriers to influenza prevention among older adults around the globe are multiple and some vary between high- and low-resource settings. To maximize influenza prevention in the older adult population, gaps in influenza vaccination coverage and improvements in vaccine efficacy are needed. The focus of this article is on the data for currently available vaccine strategies to maximize influenza vaccine impact, with a focus on high-resource settings. We also discuss novel influenza vaccine strategies needed for older adults worldwide., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)