Inactivated Split-virion seasonal influenza vaccine (fluarix®): A review of its use in the prevention of seasonal influenza in adults and the elderly

Adis, a Wolters Kluwer Business, Mairangi Bay, North Shore, Auckland, New Zealand.
Drugs (Impact Factor: 4.34). 08/2010; 70(12):1519-43. DOI: 10.2165/11205020-000000000-00000
Source: PubMed


Fluarix is a trivalent, inactivated, split-virion influenza vaccine containing 15 microg haemagglutinin from each of the three influenza virus strains (including an H1N1 influenza A virus subtype, an H3N2 influenza A virus subtype and an influenza B virus) that are expected to be circulating in the up-coming influenza season. Fluarix is highly immunogenic in healthy adults and elderly, and exceeds the criteria that make it acceptable for licensure in various regions (including the US and Europe). In a large, phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in the US (2004/2005) in subjects aged 18-64 years, postvaccination seroconversion rates against the H1N1, H3N2 and B antigens were 60-78% and respective postvaccination seroprotection rates were 97-99% in Fluarix recipients. Another phase III trial conducted in the US (2005/2006) established the noninferiority of Fluarix versus another trivalent inactivated influenza virus vaccine in subjects aged >or=18 years, including a subgroup of elderly subjects. In annual European registration trials, Fluarix has consistently exceeded the immunogenicity criteria set by the EU Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use for adults and the elderly. Fluarix demonstrated immunogenicity in small, open-label studies in at-risk subjects. During a year when the vaccine was well matched to the circulating strain, Fluarix demonstrated efficacy against culture-confirmed influenza A and/or B in a placebo-controlled trial in adults aged 18-64 years. In addition, Fluarix vaccination of pregnant women demonstrated efficacy in reducing the rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza in the infants and reducing febrile respiratory illnesses in the mothers and their new-born infants in a randomized trial. Fluarix was generally well tolerated in adults and the elderly in well designed clinical trials and in the annual European registration trials, with most local and general adverse events being transient and mild to moderate in intensity. The most common adverse reactions in recipients of Fluarix were pain, redness or swelling at the injection site, muscle aches, fatigue, headache and arthralgia. In conclusion, Fluarix is an important means of decreasing the impact of seasonal influenza viruses on adults and the elderly.

25 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effectiveness and safety of amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) for preventing and treating influenza A in adults has been systematically reviewed. However, little is known about these treatments in children and the elderly. To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2011). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing AMT and/or RMT with placebo, control, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of AMT or RMT, or both, or no intervention, in children and the elderly. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. We resolved disagreements by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, we separately analysed the trials in children and the elderly using Review Manager software. A total of 12 studies involving 2494 participants (1586 children and adolescents and 908 elderly) compared AMT and RMT with placebo, paracetamol (one trial; 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials; 545 seniors). All studies were RCTs but most were still susceptible to bias. Two trials in the elderly had a high risk of bias because of incomplete outcome data. In one of those trials there was also a lack of outcome assessment blinding. Risk of bias was unclear in 10 studies due to unclear random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Only two trials in children were considered to have a low risk of bias.AMT was effective in preventing influenza A in children. A total of 773 participants were included in this outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza in the control group was 10 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). The quality of the evidence was considered low. For treatment purposes, RMT was beneficial for abating fever on day three of treatment. For this purpose one study was selected with low risk of bias and included 69 children (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was 14 per 100, 95% CI 5 to 34. The quality of the evidence was moderate.RMT did not show a prophylactic effect against influenza in the elderly, but the quality of evidence was considered very low. There were 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41, for an assumed risk of 17 per 100 and a corresponding risk in the RMT group of 7 per 100, 95% CI 2 to 23). We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.There was no evidence of adverse effects of AMT and RMT in children or an adverse effect of RMT in the elderly. We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria. AMT is effective in preventing influenza A in children but the NNTB is high (NNTB: 12 (95% CI 9 to 17). RMT probably helps the abatement of fever on day three of treatment, but the quality of the evidence is poor. Due to the small number of available studies, we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 1(11):CD002745. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD002745.pub3 · 6.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During the 2009-2010 Northern Hemisphere influenza season, both seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines were expected to be administered to elderly people, which is an important target group for influenza vaccination. Two multicentre randomised clinical studies were conducted in participants aged ≥61 years to assess the immunogenicity and reactogenicity following vaccination with two doses of an AS03-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pmd09 vaccine when either sequentially administered (21 days before first dose [N=73] or 21 days after second dose [N=72]) or co-administered (first dose [N=84] or second dose [N=84]) with a licensed trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (TIV). Overall, 313 participants from 2 centres in Sweden (, NCT00968890) and 6 centres in Germany (NCT00971425) were randomised to one of the four treatment groups. The AS03-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pmd09 vaccine elicited a good immune response against A(H1N1)pmd09-like virus in all treatment groups after the first and second dose, meeting and exceeding the European licensing criteria for pandemic influenza vaccines. After one dose of the AS03-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pmd09 vaccine, haemagglutination inhibition seroconversion rates ranged from 85% (95% confidence interval: 74-93%) to 93% (85-97%), seroprotection rates from 87% (76-94%) to 96% (90-99%) and geometric mean fold rise from 15 (11-19) to 20 (16-25). The haemagglutination inhibition immune responses to the AS03-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pmd09 vaccine seemed lower when TIV was administered 3 weeks before, while immune responses to TIV seemed not affected by either vaccination schedule. Solicited symptoms were more frequently reported following administration of the AS03-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pmd09 vaccine compared to TIV, but these were mainly mild to moderate in intensity and transient in the four treatment groups. These results suggest that sequential or co-administration of the AS03-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pmd09 vaccine and TIV induced a good immune response to both vaccines and had a clinically acceptable safety profile in people aged ≥61 years.
    Vaccine 08/2012; 30(45):6483-91. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.07.081 · 3.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pertussis or whooping cough is increasingly being shown to be a respiratory infection affecting the elderly and a significant percentage of older people infected with Bordetella pertussis experience considerable morbidity and even mortality. However, current knowledge of burden of disease is limited largely to passive surveillance data with little well-designed active surveillance to better ascertain the true burden of pertussis in the elderly, to inform vaccination strategies. The current review aims to identify gaps in knowledge to inform policy considerations relating to pertussis vaccination among the elderly.
    Vaccine 09/2012; 30(48). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.08.079 · 3.62 Impact Factor
Show more