Influenza virus: Immunity and vaccination strategies. Comparison of the immune response to inactivated and live, attenuated influenza vaccines

被引:427
|
作者
Cox, RJ
Brokstad, KA
Ogra, P
机构
[1] Univ Bergen, Gade Inst, Bergen High Technol Ctr, Influenza Res Ctr, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
[2] Univ Bergen, Gade Inst, Broegelmann Res Lab Microbiol, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
[3] SUNY Buffalo, Childrens Hosp, Buffalo, NY USA
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.0300-9475.2004.01382.x
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Influenza virus is a globally important respiratory pathogen which causes a high degree of morbidity and mortality annually. The virus is continuously undergoing antigenic change and thus bypasses the host's acquired immunity to influenza. Despite the improvement in antiviral therapy during the last decade, vaccination is still the most effective method of prophylaxis. Vaccination induces a good degree of protection (60-90% efficacy) and is well tolerated by the recipient. For those at risk of complications from influenza, annual vaccination is recommended due to the antigenic changes in circulating strains. However, there is still room for improvement in vaccine efficacy, long-lasting effect ease of, administration and compliance rates. The mucosal tissues of the respiratory tract are the main portal entry of influenza, and the mucosal immune system provides the first line of defence against infection. Secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA) and IgM are the major neutralizing antibodies directed against mucosal pathogens. These antibodies work to prevent pathogen entry and can function intracellularly to inhibit replication of virus. This review describes influenza virus infection, epidemiology, clinical presentation and immune system response, particularly as it pertains to mucosal immunity and vaccine use. Specifically, this review provides an update of the current status on influenza vaccination and concentrates on the two main types of influenza vaccines currently in use, namely the cold-adapted vaccine (CAV.) given intranasally/orally, and the inactivated vaccine (IV) delivered subcutanously or intramuscularly. The commercially available trivalent IV (TIV) elicits good serum antibody responses but induces poorly mucosal IgA antibody and cell-mediated immunity. In contrast, the CAV may elicit a long-lasting, broader immune (humoral and cellular) response, which more closely resembles natural immunity. The immune response induced by these two vaccines will be compared in this review.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 15
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Cross-Protective Immune Responses Induced by Sequential Influenza Virus Infection and by Sequential Vaccination With Inactivated Influenza Vaccines
    Dong, Wei
    Bhide, Yoshita
    Sicca, Federica
    Meijerhof, Tjarko
    Guilfoyle, Kate
    Engelhardt, Othmar G.
    Boon, Louis
    de Haan, Cornelis A. M.
    Carnell, George
    Temperton, Nigel
    de Vries-Idema, Jacqueline
    Kelvin, David
    Huckriede, Anke
    FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY, 2018, 9
  • [32] Effectiveness of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines and Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccines against influenza confirmed in Children and Adolescents in saxony Anhalt, 2012/13
    Hermann, N.
    GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2015, 77 (07) : 499 - 501
  • [33] Live Attenuated and Inactivated Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness
    Chung, Jessie R.
    Flannery, Brendan
    Ambrose, Christopher S.
    Begue, Rodolfo E.
    Caspard, Herve
    DeMarcus, Laurie
    Fowlkes, Ashley L.
    Kersellius, Geeta
    Steffens, Andrea
    Fry, Alicia M.
    PEDIATRICS, 2019, 143 (02)
  • [34] Reduced reaction frequencies with repeated inactivated or live-attenuated influenza vaccination
    Ohmit, Suzanne E.
    Gross, Jonathan
    Victor, John C.
    Monto, Arnold S.
    VACCINE, 2009, 27 (07) : 1050 - 1054
  • [35] Inactivated and live, attenuated influenza vaccines protect mice against influenza: Streptococcus pyogenes super-infections
    Chaussee, Michael S.
    Sandbulte, Heather R.
    Schuneman, Margaret J.
    DePaula, Frank P.
    Addengast, Leslie A.
    Schlenker, Evelyn H.
    Huber, Victor C.
    VACCINE, 2011, 29 (21) : 3773 - 3781
  • [36] Immune Response and Protective Efficacy of Inactivated and Live Influenza Vaccines Against Homologous and Heterosubtypic Challenge
    E. Y. Boravleva
    A. V. Lunitsin
    A. P. Kaplun
    N. V. Bykova
    I. V. Krasilnikov
    A. S. Gambaryan
    Biochemistry (Moscow), 2020, 85 : 553 - 566
  • [37] IMMUNITY TO INFLUENZA IN FERRETS .10. INTRANASAL IMMUNIZATION OF FERRETS WITH INACTIVATED INFLUENZA A VIRUS VACCINES
    MCLAREN, C
    POTTER, CW
    JENNINGS, R
    INFECTION AND IMMUNITY, 1974, 9 (06) : 985 - 990
  • [38] The humoral immune response and protective efficacy of vaccination with inactivated split and whole influenza virus vaccines in BALB/c mice
    Cox, Rebecca Jane
    Hovden, Arnt-Ove
    Brokstad, Karl Albert
    Szyszko, Ewa
    Madhun, Abdullah Sami
    Haaheim, Lars Reinhardt
    VACCINE, 2006, 24 (44-46) : 6585 - 6587
  • [39] Immune Response and Protective Efficacy of Inactivated and Live Influenza Vaccines Against Homologous and Heterosubtypic Challenge
    Boravleva, E. Y.
    Lunitsin, A. V.
    Kaplun, A. P.
    Bykova, N. V.
    Krasilnikov, I. V.
    Gambaryan, A. S.
    BIOCHEMISTRY-MOSCOW, 2020, 85 (05) : 553 - 566
  • [40] IMMUNITY TO INFLUENZA-VIRUS INFECTION INDUCED BY HETEROLOGOUS, INACTIVATED VACCINES
    POTTER, CW
    JENNINGS, R
    NICHOLSON, K
    MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, 1978, 166 (1-4) : 99 - 108