Mucosal immune response to trivalent live attenuated intranasal influenza vaccine in children

Diesel Exhaust Exposure and Nasal Response to Attenuated Influenza in Normal and Allergic Volunteers

“…Baseline levels of most factors in NLF were quite variable, but the main method of data reduction for statistical analysis (AUC for ratios to baseline) was chosen to minimize the impact of baseline variability. Second, the temperaturesensitive LAIV is replication-limited and does not fully mimic a natural influenza infection, although it clearly is immunogenic and simulates many important features of natural mucosal host defense (34). For practical reasons and based on our prior published experience (3), we limited our data collection to the first several days after LAIV inoculation plus a later time point (Day 9), leaving open the possibility that significant effects could have been missed in the Day 5-8 interval.…”

Intranasal Immunization of Ferrets with Commercial Trivalent Influenza Vaccines Formulated in a Nanoemulsion-Based Adjuvant

“…The efficacies of live attenuated mucosal vaccines and inactivated parenteral influenza vaccines are similar in adults (6) and higher in children (4,10). The risk-benefit ratio for live attenuated vaccine use in high-risk populations, including children younger than 2 years of age, the elderly, and immunocompromised subjects, makes the development of more effective inactivated influenza vaccines for intranasal administration a desirable goal (6).…”

Shedding of live vaccine virus, comparative safety, and influenza-specific antibody responses after administration of live attenuated and inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines to HIV-infected children

“…While the presence of a certain level of serum HAI antibody response is predictive of protection, the absence of such responses following LAIV administration does not correlate with lack of protection, as high levels of efficacy and effectiveness occur with low serum HAI responses elicited by LAIV (41). The explanation for this imperfect correlation between serum antibody and protection may be because LAIV induces protection through other mechanisms, such as by stimulating mucosal immune responses in the respiratory tree (20)(21)(22). While efficacy of any type of influenza vaccine in HIV-infected children remains unproven, we observed that the relative antibody responses to LAIV and TIV in HIV-infected children were similar to those reported in children without HIV infection (42,43).…”

“…Intranasal administration of LAIV simplifies immunization and avoids the pain of intramuscular injection, thereby making LAIV more acceptable to most patients and avoiding missed opportunities because of deferred administration. Moreover, because of intranasal administration, LAIV has the potential to stimulate greater local anti-influenza immune responses than TIV (20)(21)(22). LAIV demonstrated greater reductions in influenza than TIV in HIV-uninfected children, against strains that were well-matched with strains in the vaccine, as well as against antigenically drifted strains not included in the vaccine administered (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28), and several studies have shown that the LAIV protective effect can extend beyond the year of administration (27,28).…”