Open AccessQuantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines
Author(s) -
Seidman Jessica C.,
Richard Stephanie A.,
Viboud Cécile,
Miller Mark A.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
influenza and other respiratory viruses
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.743
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1750-2659
pISSN - 1750-2640
DOI - 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00268.x
Subject(s) - vaccination , medicine , seroconversion , immunology , serology , influenza vaccine , adjuvant , immune system , immunization , population , vaccine efficacy , seasonal influenza , inactivated vaccine , antibody , environmental health , covid-19 , disease , infectious disease (medical specialty)
Please cite this paper as: Seidman et al. (2012) Quantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(1), 52–62. Background Seasonal influenza epidemics are associated with significant morbidity and mortality each year, particularly amongst young children and the elderly. Seasonal influenza vaccines have been available for decades, yet influenza remains a major public health threat in the US, sparking interest in studies evaluating the effectiveness of vaccination. Objectives We sought to identify determinants of serological responses to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines including number of doses, adjuvant, and subject characteristics. Methods We reviewed 60 articles published between 1987 and 2006. We used weighted multiple logistic regression and random‐effects models to evaluate how seroconversion and seroprotection rates varied with host and vaccine factors. Results Both children and seniors tended to have poorer immune responses compared to adults whereas use of adjuvant and a second vaccine dose tended to improve immune response. Pre‐vaccination serological status had a large impact on the immune response to vaccination. We found substantial heterogeneity among studies, even with similar population settings and vaccination regimen. Conclusions Future studies should stratify their results by pre‐vaccination serological status in an effort to produce more precise summary estimates of vaccine response.