Background
Vaccination is the primary means of preventing seasonal influenza infection. However, although it can effectively prevent influenza and its complication in healthy adults, the age-related weakening of the immune system (immunosenescence) makes elderly subjects not only more susceptible to infection, but also less responsive to vaccination [
1‐
4]. To meet the challenge of improving vaccine efficacy in the elderly and in other influenza risk groups, several strategies have been pursued [
5]. Some of these research approaches have led to the licensure of new “enhanced vaccines” and two of these were specially licensed for individuals aged ≥65 years. The first one was a subunit vaccine containing the MF59 adjuvant (Fluad®) with the aim to increase vaccine immunogenicity, to be administered intramuscularly (IM-MF59) [
6]. The second vaccine was a split non-adjuvanted vaccine administered intradermally (Intanza®) (ID), supposed to reach the same goal by reliably delivering the vaccine into the immune-rich environment of the dermis [
7]. In most instances, both vaccines were found to be capable of inducing higher, or comparable, immune responses in the elderly when compared to conventional non-enhanced influenza vaccines [
8‐
12]. Moreover, since mismatches between the vaccine strains and the circulating viruses can cause an additional reduction in vaccine efficacy [
13], the two vaccines were also investigated, with favorable results, for their ability to induce antibody in the elderly not only against the vaccine strains, but also against heterovariant influenza strains [
14]. The aim of our study was to evaluate and directly compare the ability of the two licensed enhanced vaccines to elicit an antibody response against the vaccine antigens. Moreover, we studied the long-term immunogenicity and the cross-responses against circulating mismatched influenza A(H3N2) viruses. The volunteers were institutionalized elderly people and the period of observation was the 2011–2012 Winter season.
Discussion
This study describes the immunogenicity and the ability to prevent influenza infection of two seasonal trivalent influenza enhanced vaccines, commercially available during Winter 2011–2012, characterized by the prevalent circulation of drifted A(H3N2) influenza viruses. The two vaccines, Fluad® and Intanza® 15mcg, meant to address the challenge of immunosenescence using different approaches (MF59 adjuvant and intradermal route of administration) were administered to 80 elderly volunteers (40 for vaccine group) living in two nursing homes.
The data obtained, examining the responses against the three vaccine antigens (Table
2), are in accordance with previous reports demonstrating the ability of the two potentiated vaccines, IM-MF59 [
8,
12] and ID [
9‐
12], to elicit antibody responses in elderly volunteers. One month after vaccination significant increases in HI antibody titers were observed against A(H3N2) and A(H1N1) vaccine strains, whereas the responses against the B vaccine antigen, as previously reported for traditional inactivated [
20,
21] and potentiated [
9,
22] influenza vaccines, were more limited.
A direct comparison of the HI antibody responses induced by the same two potentiated vaccines (IM-MF59 and ID) in elderly people was previously reported by Van Damme [
23] for the 2007–2008 Winter and by Scheifele et al. [
12] for the 2011–2012 Winter season, the same as the one we examined. Since Van Damme et al. [
23] reported the seroprotection and seroconversion data as a figure, only GMT values and the fulfillment of CHMP parameters could be compared. The results of Van Damme et al. [
23] and of Scheifele et al. [
12] differ under some respects from ours. Considering the responses against the two A vaccine strains, post-vaccination GMT titers against the A(H3N2) strain were higher in the IM-MF59 as compared with the ID group both in Van Damme et al. [
23] and Scheifele et al. [
12], whereas our data did not evidence differences (Table
2). Indeed we found that the GMT corrected for pre-vaccination status were even higher in the ID vs. IM-MF59 group (Figure
2). In accordance with Van Damme et al. [
23] we observed similar responses against the A(H1N1) strain, whereas Scheifele et al. [
12] found higher post-vaccination GMT titers in volunteers vaccinated with IM-MF59 as compared with ID group. However the differences, although statistically significant, were marginal and the three CHMP requirements were always reached against the two A vaccine strains [
12].
Examining the post-vaccination GMT values against the B strain, the results obtained by Scheifele et al. [
12] could not be evaluated because of the high baseline antibody values precluding meaningful response assessment. Similar post-vaccination GMT were reported by Van Damme et al. [
23] in the two groups, whereas our data (Table
2), evidenced a tendency for a higher immunogenicity in the ID group compared with IM-MF59, especially after GMT adjustment for pre-vaccination titers (Figure
2). Only one CHMP requirement was reached in the two vaccine groups examined by Van Damme et al. [
23] and in our IM-MF59 group, whereas all three requirements were met in our ID group.
Many different explanations can account for these differences. All the volunteers examined were 65 years or more, however the mean age of our population was higher (over 80 years) as compared with the mean age of the other two studies (lower than 80 years). We examined prevalently frail elderly people living in nursing homes, whereas volunteers studied by Scheifele et al. [
12] were in most instances not frail and not living in care facilities. Moreover, the number of volunteers we studied was very limited (80 people) as compared with Van Damme et al. (795 participants) [
23] and Scheifele et al. (911 participants) [
12].
The potential variability in the immunogenicity of the injected influenza strains might have influenced the results obtained since all the three antigenic strains of the 2011–2012 Winter season, studied by us and Scheifele et al. [
12], were updated as compared with those of 2007–2008 vaccine examined by Van Damme et al. [
23]. Previous contact with influenza virus due to natural infection or vaccination might also be considered. A high percentage of the people of the three trials received influenza vaccine in the previous years. However, the very high antibody titers against the B strain found by Scheifele et al. [
12], seem to suggest a possible different natural circulation of influenza viruses in the countries where the three studies were performed. Moreover, the possible contribution of the use of ether-treated B virus in the HI tests performed by Scheifele et al. [
12] needs to be considered.
The other aspect examined by us and by Scheifele et al. [
12] was the persistence of the vaccine induced antibody responses in the longer term, i.e. 6 months after vaccination. In accordance with Scheifele et al. [
12] we found that HI antibody titers decreased against all the three vaccine strains in both vaccine groups 6 months after vaccination (Table
2); the HI titers evaluated by Scheifele et al. [
12] as seroprotection against the two A strains did not differ between the two vaccine groups in contrast with the results observed shortly after vaccination. Our results evidenced that the responses found in people vaccinated with ID vaccine tended to be slightly higher as compared with IM-MF59 group especially if MFI of GMT and seroconversions rates are taken in account.
Further considerations derive from the data obtained on investigating the ability of the two vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibodies against four epidemic A(H3N2) strains circulating in the Winter 2011–2012 and found to be closely genetically correlated to the A/Victoria/208/2009 clade, different from the A/Perth/16/2009 clade (vaccine strain) (Figure
2). For the first time, the two potentiated vaccines were directly compared and the results confirm previous data demonstrating the ability of MF59-adjuvanted and intradermal vaccines [
14] to elicit cross-reactive antibodies against heterologous or circulating viruses in elderly people. Both IM-MF59 and ID vaccines induced favorable immune responses against the four A(H3N2) circulating influenza viruses examined and at least two (seroprotection rate and MFI of GMT) of the CHMP criteria were met (Table
3). No substantial differences were found between the two vaccine groups, although HI titers were somewhat higher in the ID group. However, the post-vaccination values against the four circulating viruses were substantially poorer than those against the homologous A(H3N2) virus. In accordance with these results, suggesting that the drifted circulating strains examined may have different antigenic patterns with possible impact on vaccine immunogenicity, the A/Perth/16/2009 vaccine strain was replaced for the 2012–2013 Winter by A/Victoria/361/2011, belonging to the A/Victoria/208/2009 clade [
24].
Conclusions
In conclusion, this study, although limited in size, confirmed that the use of MF59 adjuvant and intradermal vaccination appear to be appropriate strategies to address the challenge of declining immune responsiveness in the elderly after influenza vaccination. Both IM-MF59 and ID influenza vaccines for the 2011–2012 Winter season were found to induce significant antibody responses against the three vaccine antigens, although the responses against the B antigen and the persistence of antibodies 6 months after vaccination tended to be higher in subjects vaccinated with ID than in individuals receiving IM-MF59 vaccine. Moreover, the two vaccines induced immune responses against drifted circulating influenza A(H3N2) viruses, although to a lesser extent as compared with A(H3N2) vaccine antigen.
Since a systematic meta-analysis for IM-MF59 versus ID vaccine is not available, these results can be considered preliminary, awaiting more extensive examination and systematic evidence.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Authors’ contributions
BC and MB participated in the design of the study, carried out immunological assays and performed the statistical analysis; ADM and ID carried out genetically characterizations of the viruses; AMI conceived of the study and draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.