PMID: 

Lancet Neurol. 2014 Jun ;13(6):600-13. PMID: 24849861

Abstract Title: 

Narcolepsy as an autoimmune disease: the role of H1N1 infection and vaccination.

Abstract: 

Narcolepsy is a sleep disorder characterised by loss of hypothalamic hypocretin (orexin) neurons. The prevalence of narcolepsy is about 30 per 100 000 people, and typical age at onset is 12-16 years. Narcolepsy is strongly associated with the HLA-DQB1*06:02 genotype, and has been thought of as an immune-mediated disease. Other risk genes, such as T-cell-receptor α chain and purinergic receptor subtype 2Y11, are also implicated. Interest innarcolepsy has increased since the epidemiological observations that H1N1 infection and vaccination are potential triggering factors, and an increase in the incidence of narcolepsy after the pandemic AS03 adjuvanted H1N1 vaccination in 2010 from Sweden and Finland supports the immune-mediated pathogenesis. Epidemiological observations from studies in China also suggest a role for H1N1 virus infections as a trigger for narcolepsy. Although the pathological mechanisms are unknown, an H1N1 virus-derived antigen might be the trigger.

read more

PMID: 

Neurology. 2013 Apr 2 ;80(14):1315-21. Epub 2013 Mar 13. PMID: 23486871

Abstract Title: 

Increased childhood incidence of narcolepsy in western Sweden after H1N1 influenza vaccination.

Abstract: 

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of narcolepsy between January 2000 and December 2010 in children in western Sweden and its relationship to the Pandemrix vaccination, and to compare the clinical and laboratory features of these children.METHODS: The children were identified from all local and regional pediatric hospitals, child rehabilitation centers, outpatient pediatric clinics, and regional departments of neurophysiology. Data collection was performed with the aid of a standardized data collection form, from medical records and telephone interviews with patients and parents. The laboratory and investigational data were carefully scrutinized.RESULTS: We identified 37 children with narcolepsy. Nine of them had onset of symptoms before the H1N1 vaccination and 28 had onset of symptoms in relationship to the vaccination. The median age at onset was 10 years. All patients in the postvaccination group were positive for human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DQB1*0602. Nineteen patients in the postvaccination group, compared with one in the prevaccination group, had a clinical onset that could be dated within 12 weeks.CONCLUSION: Pandemrix vaccination is a precipitating factor for narcolepsy, especially in combination with HLA-DQB1*0602. The incidence of narcolepsy was 25 times higher after the vaccination compared with the time period before. The children in the postvaccination group had a lower age at onset and a more sudden onset than that generally seen.

read more

PMID: 

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 07 ;37(7):840-4. Epub 2016 Apr 21. PMID: 27098758

Abstract Title: 

Potential Ceiling Effect of Healthcare Worker Influenza Vaccination on the Incidence of Nosocomial Influenza Infection.

Abstract: 

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of healthcare worker (HCW) influenza vaccination on the incidence of nosocomial influenza DESIGN Retrospective cross-sectional study SETTING A 550-bed tertiary-care academic medical center METHODS All admitted patients with a direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay positive for influenza ordered between October 1 and May 31 from 2010 to 2015 were eligible for inclusion. Nosocomial influenza was defined as a positive influenza test collected≥48 hours after admission in patients without influenza-like illness present within 24 hours of admission. Relative nosocomial influenza frequency was calculated by dividing the number of nosocomial cases by the total number of admitted patients with influenza for each season. A univariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between HCW influenza vaccination coverage and nosocomial influenza. RESULTS Over 5 seasons, 533 patients had positive influenza tests during their hospitalization; 29 of these patients (5.4%) acquired influenza during their hospitalization. HCW vaccination coverage increased over the 5 seasons from 47% to 90% (P50% may not have a significant effect on nosocomial influenza. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:840-844.

read more

PMID: 

J Korean Med Sci. 2017 Jul ;32(7):1154-1159. PMID: 28581273

Abstract Title: 

Clinical Features of Post-Vaccination Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in Korea.

Abstract: 

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is the most common immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy and it is also the most commonly reported severe adverse event following immunization in adults. To evaluate the results of clinical and laboratory features of GBS after vaccination in Korea, we analyzed the claims-based data from 2002 to 2014 using materials collected for the Advisory Committee Vaccination Injury Compensation (ACVIC) meeting including, clinical features, nerve conduction studies (NCSs), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) profiles, treatment, and outcomes. Forty-eight compensated GBS cases (median age, 15 years; interquartile range [IQR], 13-51; male:female ratio, 1:1) of 68 suspected GBS were found following immunization and all of them with influenza immunizations with either monovalent (n = 35) or trivalent (n = 13). Among them, 30 cases fulfilled the Brighton criteria level 1-3 (62.5%). The median duration between the onset of symptoms to nadir, duration of the nadir, and total admission period were 3 (IQR, 2-7 days), 2 (IQR, 1-5 days), and 14 (IQR, 6-33 days) days, respectively. The most frequently reported symptom was quadriparesis which was present in 36 cases (75%) at nadir. CSF examinationrevealed albuminocytologic dissociation in 25.0% and NCS was abnormal in 61.8%. After treatment, most of them showed improvement. Clinical features were similar to typical post-infectious GBS and there were both demyelinating and axonal forms suggesting heterogeneous pathogenic mechanism. In order to improve the diagnostic certainty of post-vaccination GBS, careful documentation of clinical features and timely diagnostic work-up with follow-up studies are needed.

read more

PMID: 

Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Oct 30 ;65(10):1644-1651. PMID: 29020179

Abstract Title: 

The Household Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Study: Lack of Antibody Response and Protection Following Receipt of 2014-2015 Influenza Vaccine.

Abstract: 

Background: Antigenically drifted A(H3N2) viruses circulated extensively during the 2014-2015 influenza season. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was low and not significant among outpatients but in a hospitalized population was 43%. At least one study paradoxically observed increased A(H3N2) infection among those vaccinated 3 consecutive years.Methods: We followed a cohort of 1341 individuals from 340 households. VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza was estimated. Hemagglutination-inhibition and neuraminidase-inhibition antibody titers were determined in subjects≥13 years.Results: Influenza A(H3N2) was identified in 166 (12%) individuals and B(Yamagata) in 34 (2%). VE against A(H3N2) was -3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -55%, 32%) and similarly ineffective between age groups; increased risk of infection was not observed among those vaccinated in 2 or 3 previous years. VE against influenza B(Yamagata) was 57% (95% CI: -3%, 82%) but only significantly protective in children

read more

PMID: 

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 02 1 ;2:CD004876. Epub 2018 Feb 1. PMID: 29388197

Abstract Title: 

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.

Abstract: 

BACKGROUND: The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in the elderly.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 to 31 December 2016); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes.MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

read more

PMID: 

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 02 1 ;2:CD001269. Epub 2018 Feb 1. PMID: 29388196

Abstract Title: 

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

Abstract: 

BACKGROUND: The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published in 2014. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated due to their lack of influence on the review conclusions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1990 to 31 December 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017), as well as checking the bibliographies of retrieved articles.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. Previous versions of this review included observational comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms cohort and case-control studies. Due to the uncertain quality of observational (i.e. non-randomised) studies and their lack of influence on the review conclusions, we decided to update only randomised evidence. The searches for observational comparative studies are no longer updated.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence for key outcomes (influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospitalisation, and adverse effects) using GRADE.MAIN RESULTS: We included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines. We have presented findings from 25 studies comparing inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine against placebo or do-nothing control groups as the most relevant to decision-making. The studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. We did not consider studies at high risk of bias to influence the results of our outcomes except for hospitalisation.Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.47; 71,221 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 25,795 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI). The difference between the two number needed to vaccinate (NNV) values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations. Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalisation in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a large benefit (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; 11,924 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vaccines may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work (-0.04 days, 95% CI -0.14 days to 0.06; low-certainty evidence). Inactivated vaccines cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%.We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% (95% CI 14% to 71%) in mothers (NNV 55), and 49% (95% CI 12% to 70%) in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56). No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (95% CI 11% to 36%, NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41% (95% CI 6% to 63%, NNV 27).Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to an NNV of 46. The performance of one- or two-dose whole-virion 1968 to 1969 pandemic vaccines was higher (NNV 16) against ILI and (NNV 35) against influenza. There was limited impact on hospitalisations in the 1968 to 1969 pandemic (NNV 94). The administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy had no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death, but this was based on observational data sets.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate-certainty evidence). They also probably experience less ILI following vaccination, but the degree of benefit when expressed in absolute terms varied across different settings. Variation in protection against ILI may be due in part to inconsistent symptom classification. Certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalisations and time off work is low. Protection against influenza and ILI in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review.Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events, including a small increase in fever, but rates of nausea and vomiting are uncertain. The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest. We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review. Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).

read more

PMID: 

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 02 1 ;2:CD004879. Epub 2018 Feb 1. PMID: 29388195

Abstract Title: 

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.

Abstract: 

BACKGROUND: The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people over 65 years of age. This is an update of a review published in 2011. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy children.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 12), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy children under 16 years. Previous versions of this review included 19 cohort and 11 case-control studies. We are no longer updating the searches for these study designs but have retained the observational studies for historical purposes.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the key outcomes of influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), complications (hospitalisation, ear infection), and adverse events. Due to variation in control group risks for influenza and ILI, absolute effects are reported as the median control group risk, and numbers needed to vaccinate (NNVs) are reported accordingly. For other outcomes aggregate control group risks are used.MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 clinical trials (>200,000 children). Most of the studies were conducted in children over the age of two and compared live attenuated or inactivated vaccines with placebo or no vaccine. Studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in the USA, Western Europe, Russia, and Bangladesh between 1984 and 2013. Restricting analyses to studies at low risk of bias showed that influenza and otitis media were the only outcomes where the impact of bias was negligible. Variability in study design and reporting impeded meta-analysis of harms outcomes.Live attenuated vaccinesCompared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.41; 7718 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80; 124,606 children; low-certainty evidence). Seven children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 20 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one child experiencing an ILI. Acute otitis media is probably similar following vaccine or placebo during seasonal influenza, but this result comes from a single study with particularly high rates of acute otitis media (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. Vaccinating children may lead to fewer parents taking time off work, although the CI includes no effect (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence). Data on the most serious consequences of influenza complications leading to hospitalisation were not available. Data from four studies measuring fever following vaccination varied considerably, from 0.16% to 15% in children who had live vaccines, while in the placebo groups the proportions ranged from 0.71% to 22% (very low-certainty evidence). Data on nausea were not reported.Inactivated vaccinesCompared with placebo or no vaccination, inactivated vaccines reduce the risk of influenza in children aged 2 to 16 years from 30% to 11% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.48; 1628 children; high-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 28% to 20% (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.79; 19,044 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Five children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 12 children would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. The risk of otitis media is probably similar between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children (31% versus 27%), although the CI does not exclude a meaningful increase in otitis media following vaccination (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.40; 884 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. We identified no data on parental working time lost, hospitalisation, fever, or nausea.We found limited evidence on secondary cases, requirement for treatment of lower respiratory tract disease, and drug prescriptions. One brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine was associated with a sudden loss of muscle tone triggered by the experience of an intense emotion (cataplexy) and a sleep disorder (narcolepsy) in children. Evidence of serious harms (such as febrile fits) was sparse.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In children aged between 3 and 16 years, live influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence) over a single influenza season. In this population inactivated vaccines also reduce influenza (high-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence). For both vaccine types, the absolute reduction in influenza and ILI varied considerably across the study populations, making it difficult to predict how these findings translate to different settings. We found very few randomised controlled trials in children under two years of age. Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardised approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed. Identification of all global cases of potential harms is beyond the scope of this review.

read more

PMID: 

Vaccine. 2013 Dec 2 ;31(49):5903-8. Epub 2013 Oct 16. PMID: 24139837

Abstract Title: 

Can vaccine legacy explain the British pertussis resurgence?

Abstract: 

Pertussis incidence has been rising in some countries, including the UK, despite sustained high vaccine coverage. We questioned whether it is possible to explain the resurgence without recourse to complex hypotheses about pathogen evolution, subclinical infections, or trends in surveillance efficiency. In particular, we investigated the possibility that the resurgence is a consequence of the legacy of incomplete pediatric immunization, in the context of cohort structure and age-dependent transmission. We constructed a model of pertussis transmission in England and Wales based on data on age-specific contact rates and historical vaccine coverage estimates. We evaluated the agreement between model-predicted and observed patterns of age-specific pertussis incidence under a variety of assumptions regarding the duration of immunity. Under the assumption that infection-derived immunity is complete and lifelong, and regardless of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity, the model consistently predicts a resurgence of pertussis incidence comparable to that which has been observed. Interestingly, no resurgence is predicted when infection- and vaccine-derived immunities wane at the same rate. These results were qualitatively insensitive to rates of primary vaccine failure. We conclude that the alarming resurgence of pertussis among adults and adolescents in Britain and elsewhere may simply be a legacy of historically inadequate coverage employing imperfect vaccines. Indeed, we argue that the absence of resurgence at this late date would be more surprising. Our analysis shows that careful accounting for age dependence in contact rates and susceptibility is prerequisite to the identification of which features of pertussis epidemiology want additional explanation.

read more

PMID: 

BMJ. 2013 May 16 ;346:f3037. Epub 2013 May 16. PMID: 23682040

Abstract Title: 

Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease.

Abstract: 

[n/a]

read more