J Infect Dis. Safety and Immunogenicity of Influenza A H5 Subunit Vaccines: Effect of Vaccine Schedule and Antigenic Variant

[Emily]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/737330

From Medscape Medical News
Old Influenza Vaccines Can Boost New Ones

Jim Kling

February 14, 2011 ? An H5 influenza vaccine that is antigenically out of date can be effectively used as a primer for a second dose of a contemporary antigen. The strategy could help public health officials respond quickly to a pandemic, because they could give the first dose immediately, without having to wait for the delivery of a novel vaccine, according to a study published in the March issue of the Journal of Infectious Diseases.
[snip]
The results echo immunization experience with the 2009 H1 vaccine, when a single dose of 2009 H1 HA subunit vaccine produced a response in persons aged 10 years and older. The authors believe that previous H1 infection had primed them to respond to the vaccine, even though the antigen of the previous infection was probably distantly related.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

J Infect Dis. 2011;203:666-673

 

[Laidback Al]

Re: Old Influenza Vaccines Can Boost New Ones

Re: Old Influenza Vaccines Can Boost New Ones

<cite><abbr title="Journal of Infectious Diseases" class="slug-jnl-abbrev">J Infect Dis.</abbr> (2011) 203 (5): 666-673. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiq093 </cite> First published online: January 31, 2011

Safety and Immunogenicity of Influenza A H5 Subunit Vaccines: Effect of Vaccine Schedule and Antigenic Variant

Robert B. Belshe1,

1. Sharon E. Frey1,
2. Irene Graham1,
3. Mark J. Mulligan2,
4. Srilatha Edupuganti2,
5. Lisa A. Jackson4,
6. Anna Wald5,
7. Gregory Poland6,
8. Robert Jacobson6,
9. Harry L. Keyserling3,
10. Paul Spearman3,
11. Heather Hill7,
12. Mark Wolff7 and
13. for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases?Funded Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units

+ Author Affiliations

1. <address>¹Division of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri </address>
2. <address>²Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia </address>
3. <address>³Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia </address>
4. <address>⁴Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington </address>
5. <address>⁵Department of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington </address>
6. <address>⁶Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota </address>
7. <address>⁷The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, Maryland </address>

1. Reprints or correspondence: Robert B. Belshe, MD, Div of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Saint Louis University, 1100 S. Grand Blvd, DRC-8, St. Louis, MO 63104 (belsherb@slu.edu).

Abstract

Background. The current US national stockpile of influenza H5 vaccine was produced using the antigen from the strain A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (a clade 1 H5 virus). Recent H5 disease has been caused by antigenically divergent H5 viruses, including A/Indonesia/05/2005 (a clade 2 H5 virus).
Methods. The influence of schedule on the antibody response to 2 doses of H5 vaccines (one a clade 1 hemagglutinin protein [HA] vaccine and one a clade 2 HA vaccine) containing 90 μg of antigen was evaluated in healthy adults 18?49 years of age.
Results. Two doses of vaccine were required to induce antibody titers ≥1:10 in most subjects. Accelerated schedules were immunogenic, and antibody developed after vaccinations on days 0 and 7, 0 and 14, and 0 and 28, with the day 0 and 7 schedule inducing lower titers than those induced with the other schedules. With mixed vaccine schedules of clade 1 followed by clade 2 vaccine administration, the first vaccination primed for a heterologous boost. The heterologous response was improved when the second vaccination was given 6 months after the first, compared with the response when the second vaccination was given after an interval of 1 month.
Conclusions. An accelerated vaccine schedule of injections administered at days 0 and 14 was as immunogenic as a vaccine schedule of injections at days 0 and 28, but both schedules were inferior to a vaccine schedule of injections administered at 0 and 6 months for priming for heterologous vaccine boosting.

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/203/5/666.abstract