Real-world Effectiveness of Live Attenuated and Inactivated Influenza Vaccines in Children and Adolescents from 2003 to 2023: a Plain Language Summary of Publication.

IF 3.8 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease Pub Date : 2025-10-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20499361251390680
Anke L Stuurman, Joshua Enxing, Aura V Gutiérrez, Christen M Gray, Ingrid T Sepúlveda-Pachón, Egbe Ubamadu, Allyn Bandell, Sylvia Taylor, Georges El Azzi, Wilhelmine Meeraus
{"title":"Real-world Effectiveness of Live Attenuated and Inactivated Influenza Vaccines in Children and Adolescents from 2003 to 2023: a Plain Language Summary of Publication.","authors":"Anke L Stuurman, Joshua Enxing, Aura V Gutiérrez, Christen M Gray, Ingrid T Sepúlveda-Pachón, Egbe Ubamadu, Allyn Bandell, Sylvia Taylor, Georges El Azzi, Wilhelmine Meeraus","doi":"10.1177/20499361251390680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What is this summary about? This is a plain language summary describing the results of a systematic literature review and meta-analysis originally published in <i>Expert Review of Vaccines</i> in July 2025. Children and adolescents are an important group for <b>influenza</b> <b>vaccination</b> because they play a major role in spreading <b>influenza</b> viruses to others and are often hospitalized due to <b>influenza</b>. <b>Live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIV)</b> and <b>inactivated <b>influenza</b> vaccines (IIV)</b> are two different types of <b>influenza</b> <b>vaccine</b> that are used to protect children and adolescents from <b>influenza</b> illness. This review looked at how well LAIV and IIV provided protection against <b>influenza</b> between 2003 (when LAIV was first available) and 2023 in children and adolescents under 18 years of age. Why was this review done? <b>Influenza</b> viruses can change rapidly in ways that affect how well vaccines work in a particular <b><b>influenza</b> season</b>. When this happens, <b>influenza</b> vaccines may not provide good protection because they take many months to produce, with development starting about 6 months before the <b>influenza</b> season begins. The specific versions of <b>influenza</b> viruses, or strains, used to make vaccines change from year to year based on recommendations from <b>The World Health Organization</b>. Public health bodies such as the United States' 'Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' (US ACIP) and the United Kingdom's 'Joint Committee on <b>Vaccination</b> and Immunisation' also publish recommendations on which vaccines should be used for the upcoming <b>influenza</b> season on their respective websites and will update these recommendations for the next <b>influenza</b> season if studies show that a particular <b>vaccine</b> isn't providing enough protection. For this reason, <b>influenza</b> vaccines can lose their recommendation for use or other vaccines may be recommended instead for use in select groups. For example, the US ACIP stopped recommending LAIV for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 <b>influenza</b> seasons after some US-based studies showed it didn't protect well against the <b>influenza</b> A (H1N1) <b>virus</b> following the 2009 <b>influenza</b> A (H1N1) pandemic. However, an updated LAIV was developed that improved on the <b>strain selection</b> process and contained a replacement <b>influenza</b> A (H1N1) strain. This led to LAIV being recommended by the committee again for the 2018-2019 <b>influenza</b> season, and LAIV has continued to be recommended by the committee in its seasonal <b>vaccine</b> guidance each year since 2019. The researchers carried out this review to look at how well LAIV and IIV protected against <b>influenza</b> in children and adolescents in <b>real-world settings</b> (e.g. outside clinical trials) since LAIV was first approved in 2003. How was this review carried out? The researchers found studies of LAIV and IIV <b>vaccine effectiveness (VE)</b> published in scientific journals or by public health bodies and screened the results to only include studies meeting pre-defined criteria for study design and quality. The results were examined per <b>influenza</b> season and also by three time periods based on <b>influenza</b> A (H1N1) and LAIV history to understand how well LAIV and IIV protected against <b>influenza</b> during each period: • 2003-04 to 2008-09: Before the 2009 <b>influenza</b> A (H1N1) pandemic. • 2010-11 to 2016-17: After the 2009 pandemic and before the improved LAIV strain selection process. • 2017-18 to 2022-23: After the improved LAIV strain selection process. The researchers then used two different types of <b>meta-analysis</b> to combine the findings from multiple studies together to create a single result, or summary estimate, of VE for LAIV and IIV to help to understand how well both types of <b>vaccine</b> protected against any <b>influenza</b> illness and against <b>influenza</b> illness caused by specific <b>influenza</b> viruses, for example <b>influenza</b> A (H1N1), A (H3N2), and B: • A <b>random effects meta-analysis</b> was used to estimate <b>absolute <b>vaccine</b> effectiveness (aVE)</b> - this is a measure of how a <b>vaccine</b> protects against an illness compared with not getting a <b>vaccine</b>. aVE was estimated for both <b>vaccine</b> types (LAIV and IIV). • A <b>network meta-analysis</b> was used to estimate <b>relative <b>vaccine</b> effectiveness (rVE)</b> - this is a measure of how well one <b>vaccine</b> protects against an illness compared to another <b>vaccine</b>. rVE was estimated for LAIV compared to IIV. All aVE and rVE summary estimates were interpreted alongside their 95% <b>confidence intervals</b>, which is a range of values that shows how sure researchers are about an estimate and means the true result would fall within that range 95 times out of 100 if the study were repeated 100 times. What were the main results of this review? This review examined 109 studies from Northern Hemisphere countries with winter <b>influenza</b> seasons. The results showed that both LAIV and IIV were similarly effective against any <b>influenza</b> illness compared with not being vaccinated, with an aVE of roughly 50% in each time period. rVE estimates showed that • LAIV was less effective than IIV at protecting against <b>influenza</b> A (H1N1) illness between the 2010-11 and 2016-17 <b>influenza</b> seasons (rVE=-46%; 95% confidence interval: -57% to -33%). • Following improvements to the LAIV strain selection process introduced in the 2017-18 season, both vaccines provided similar levels of protection against <b>influenza</b> A (H1N1) illness between 2017-18 and 2022-23, (rVE=10%; 95% confidence interval: -35% to 87%). • During the same period, LAIV and IIV were similarly effective at protecting against illness from any <b>influenza</b> A <b>virus</b> (rVE=7%; 95% confidence interval: -15% to 33%). • LAIV was also more effective than IIV against illness from any <b>influenza</b> B <b>virus</b> after the improved strain selection process (rVE=196%; 95% confidence interval: 73% to 406%). What do these results mean? These findings show that LAIV and IIV offer similar protection against any <b>influenza</b> illness in children and adolescents under 18 years of age, and that getting vaccinated with any <b>influenza</b> <b>vaccine</b> will provide protection against <b>influenza</b> illness. Who should read this summary? This summary is intended for parents considering vaccinating their children against <b>influenza</b>, healthcare professionals who do not specialize in <b>influenza</b> but <b>vaccinate</b> people against <b>influenza</b> in their medical practice, and for individuals who wish to learn about the level of protection provided by <b>influenza</b> <b>vaccination</b>. Who sponsored this research and plain language summary? This research and this plain language summary were both sponsored by AstraZeneca.</p>","PeriodicalId":46154,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease","volume":"12 ","pages":"20499361251390680"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12541152/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361251390680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What is this summary about? This is a plain language summary describing the results of a systematic literature review and meta-analysis originally published in Expert Review of Vaccines in July 2025. Children and adolescents are an important group for influenza vaccination because they play a major role in spreading influenza viruses to others and are often hospitalized due to influenza. Live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIV) and inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV) are two different types of influenza vaccine that are used to protect children and adolescents from influenza illness. This review looked at how well LAIV and IIV provided protection against influenza between 2003 (when LAIV was first available) and 2023 in children and adolescents under 18 years of age. Why was this review done? Influenza viruses can change rapidly in ways that affect how well vaccines work in a particular influenza season. When this happens, influenza vaccines may not provide good protection because they take many months to produce, with development starting about 6 months before the influenza season begins. The specific versions of influenza viruses, or strains, used to make vaccines change from year to year based on recommendations from The World Health Organization. Public health bodies such as the United States' 'Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' (US ACIP) and the United Kingdom's 'Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation' also publish recommendations on which vaccines should be used for the upcoming influenza season on their respective websites and will update these recommendations for the next influenza season if studies show that a particular vaccine isn't providing enough protection. For this reason, influenza vaccines can lose their recommendation for use or other vaccines may be recommended instead for use in select groups. For example, the US ACIP stopped recommending LAIV for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 influenza seasons after some US-based studies showed it didn't protect well against the influenza A (H1N1) virus following the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. However, an updated LAIV was developed that improved on the strain selection process and contained a replacement influenza A (H1N1) strain. This led to LAIV being recommended by the committee again for the 2018-2019 influenza season, and LAIV has continued to be recommended by the committee in its seasonal vaccine guidance each year since 2019. The researchers carried out this review to look at how well LAIV and IIV protected against influenza in children and adolescents in real-world settings (e.g. outside clinical trials) since LAIV was first approved in 2003. How was this review carried out? The researchers found studies of LAIV and IIV vaccine effectiveness (VE) published in scientific journals or by public health bodies and screened the results to only include studies meeting pre-defined criteria for study design and quality. The results were examined per influenza season and also by three time periods based on influenza A (H1N1) and LAIV history to understand how well LAIV and IIV protected against influenza during each period: • 2003-04 to 2008-09: Before the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. • 2010-11 to 2016-17: After the 2009 pandemic and before the improved LAIV strain selection process. • 2017-18 to 2022-23: After the improved LAIV strain selection process. The researchers then used two different types of meta-analysis to combine the findings from multiple studies together to create a single result, or summary estimate, of VE for LAIV and IIV to help to understand how well both types of vaccine protected against any influenza illness and against influenza illness caused by specific influenza viruses, for example influenza A (H1N1), A (H3N2), and B: • A random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate absolute vaccine effectiveness (aVE) - this is a measure of how a vaccine protects against an illness compared with not getting a vaccine. aVE was estimated for both vaccine types (LAIV and IIV). • A network meta-analysis was used to estimate relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) - this is a measure of how well one vaccine protects against an illness compared to another vaccine. rVE was estimated for LAIV compared to IIV. All aVE and rVE summary estimates were interpreted alongside their 95% confidence intervals, which is a range of values that shows how sure researchers are about an estimate and means the true result would fall within that range 95 times out of 100 if the study were repeated 100 times. What were the main results of this review? This review examined 109 studies from Northern Hemisphere countries with winter influenza seasons. The results showed that both LAIV and IIV were similarly effective against any influenza illness compared with not being vaccinated, with an aVE of roughly 50% in each time period. rVE estimates showed that • LAIV was less effective than IIV at protecting against influenza A (H1N1) illness between the 2010-11 and 2016-17 influenza seasons (rVE=-46%; 95% confidence interval: -57% to -33%). • Following improvements to the LAIV strain selection process introduced in the 2017-18 season, both vaccines provided similar levels of protection against influenza A (H1N1) illness between 2017-18 and 2022-23, (rVE=10%; 95% confidence interval: -35% to 87%). • During the same period, LAIV and IIV were similarly effective at protecting against illness from any influenza A virus (rVE=7%; 95% confidence interval: -15% to 33%). • LAIV was also more effective than IIV against illness from any influenza B virus after the improved strain selection process (rVE=196%; 95% confidence interval: 73% to 406%). What do these results mean? These findings show that LAIV and IIV offer similar protection against any influenza illness in children and adolescents under 18 years of age, and that getting vaccinated with any influenza vaccine will provide protection against influenza illness. Who should read this summary? This summary is intended for parents considering vaccinating their children against influenza, healthcare professionals who do not specialize in influenza but vaccinate people against influenza in their medical practice, and for individuals who wish to learn about the level of protection provided by influenza vaccination. Who sponsored this research and plain language summary? This research and this plain language summary were both sponsored by AstraZeneca.

2003年至2023年儿童和青少年减毒活疫苗和灭活疫苗的实际有效性:出版物的简明语言摘要。
这个总结是关于什么的?这是一份简明的语言摘要,描述了一项系统性文献综述和荟萃分析的结果,该结果最初发表于2025年7月的《疫苗专家评论》。儿童和青少年是接种流感疫苗的重要群体,因为他们在将流感病毒传播给他人方面发挥着重要作用,并经常因流感住院。流感减毒活疫苗(LAIV)和流感灭活疫苗(IIV)是两种不同类型的流感疫苗,用于保护儿童和青少年免受流感疾病的侵害。本综述研究了2003年(LAIV首次上市)至2023年间,LAIV和iv在18岁以下儿童和青少年中预防流感的效果。为什么要做这个综述?流感病毒可以迅速变化,从而影响疫苗在特定流感季节的效果。当这种情况发生时,流感疫苗可能无法提供良好的保护,因为它们需要许多个月的时间来生产,在流感季节开始前大约6个月开始开发。根据世界卫生组织的建议,用于制造疫苗的流感病毒或菌株的特定版本每年都在变化。公共卫生机构,如美国的“免疫实践咨询委员会”(US ACIP)和英国的“疫苗接种和免疫联合委员会”,也在各自的网站上公布了在即将到来的流感季节应该使用哪些疫苗的建议,如果研究表明某种疫苗不能提供足够的保护,将在下一个流感季节更新这些建议。因此,流感疫苗可能会失去推荐使用的资格,或者可能会建议在特定人群中使用其他疫苗。例如,在美国的一些研究表明LAIV在2009年甲型H1N1流感大流行后不能很好地预防甲型H1N1流感病毒后,美国ACIP停止推荐在2016-17和2017-18流感季节使用LAIV。然而,开发了一种更新的LAIV,改进了毒株选择过程,并包含替代甲型H1N1流感毒株。这导致该委员会在2018-2019年流感季节再次推荐LAIV,自2019年以来,该委员会每年在其季节性疫苗指南中继续推荐LAIV。这组科学家进行这一综述是为了观察自2003年LAIV首次获得批准以来,LAIV和iv在现实环境中(例如临床试验之外)对儿童和青少年预防流感的效果。这次审查是如何进行的?这组科学家找到了发表在科学期刊或公共卫生机构上的关于LAIV和iv疫苗有效性(VE)的研究,并对结果进行了筛选,只包括符合预先确定的研究设计和质量标准的研究。根据甲型H1N1流感和LAIV的历史,对每个流感季节和三个时间段的结果进行了检查,以了解LAIV和iv在每个时期对流感的保护程度:•2003-04年至2008-09年:2009年甲型H1N1流感大流行之前。•2010-11至2016-17:2009年大流行之后和改进LAIV毒株选择程序之前。•2017-18至2022-23:经过改进的LAIV菌株选择过程后。然后,研究人员使用了两种不同类型的荟萃分析,将来自多个研究的结果结合在一起,以创建LAIV和iv的VE的单一结果或概要估计,以帮助了解这两种类型的疫苗对任何流感疾病以及由特定流感病毒(例如甲型H1N1流感、甲型H3N2流感和乙型流感)引起的流感疾病的保护程度。•随机效应荟萃分析用于估计绝对疫苗有效性(aVE)——这是一种衡量疫苗与未接种疫苗相比如何预防疾病的措施。•使用网络荟萃分析来估计相对疫苗有效性(rVE)——这是一种疫苗与另一种疫苗相比对一种疾病的保护程度的度量。与iv相比,估计LAIV的rVE。所有aVE和rVE的总结估计都是根据它们的95%置信区间来解释的,这是一个值范围,表明研究人员对估计的确信程度,这意味着如果研究重复100次,真实结果将落在该范围内95次。本综述的主要结果是什么?本综述检查了北半球冬季流感季节国家的109项研究。结果表明,与未接种疫苗相比,LAIV和iv对任何流感疾病的有效性相似,在每个时间段的aVE均约为50%。 rVE估计显示,在2010-11年和2016-17年流感季节期间,LAIV在预防甲型H1N1流感疾病方面的效果不如iv (rVE=-46%; 95%置信区间:-57%至-33%)。•在2017-18流感季对LAIV毒株选择过程进行改进后,两种疫苗在2017-18和2022-23年间对甲型H1N1流感疾病的保护水平相似(rVE=10%; 95%置信区间:-35%至87%)。•在同一时期,LAIV和iv在预防甲型流感病毒感染方面同样有效(rVE=7%; 95%可信区间:-15%至33%)。•在改进的菌株选择过程后,LAIV对任何乙型流感病毒的疾病都比IIV更有效(rVE=196%; 95%置信区间:73%至406%)。这些结果意味着什么?这些发现表明,LAIV和iv对18岁以下儿童和青少年预防任何流感疾病提供类似的保护,接种任何流感疫苗都将提供预防流感疾病的保护。谁应该读这篇摘要?本摘要适用于考虑为孩子接种流感疫苗的父母、在医疗实践中不专门研究流感但为人们接种流感疫苗的医疗保健专业人员以及希望了解流感疫苗提供保护水平的个人。谁赞助了这项研究和简单的语言总结?这项研究和这个简单的语言总结都是由阿斯利康赞助的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
64
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书