Powers D C, Fries L F, Murphy B R, Thumar B, Clements M L
Clinical Immunology Section, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.
J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Mar;29(3):498-505. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.3.498-505.1991.
In a double-blind, randomized trial, 102 healthy elderly subjects were inoculated with one of four preparations: (i) intranasal bivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine containing cold-adapted A/Kawasaki/86 (H1N1) and cold-adapted A/Bethesda/85 (H3N2) viruses; (ii) parenteral trivalent inactivated subvirion vaccine containing A/Taiwan/86 (H1N1), A/Leningrad/86 (H3N2), and B/Ann Arbor/86 antigens; (iii) both vaccines; or (iv) placebo. To determine whether local or systemic immunization augmented mucosal immunologic memory, all volunteers were challenged intranasally 12 weeks later with the inactivated virus vaccine. We used a hemagglutination inhibition assay to measure antibodies in sera and a kinetic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to measure immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgA antibodies in sera and nasal washes, respectively. In comparison with the live virus vaccine, the inactivated virus vaccine elicited higher and more frequent rises of serum antibodies, while nasal wash antibody responses were similar. The vaccine combination induced serum and local antibodies slightly more often than the inactivated vaccine alone did. Coadministration of live influenza A virus vaccine did not alter the serum antibody response to the influenza B virus component of the inactivated vaccine. The anamnestic nasal antibody response elicited by intranasal inactivated virus challenge did not differ in the live, inactivated, or combined vaccine groups from that observed in the placebo group not previously immunized. These results suggest that in elderly persons cold-adapted influenza A virus vaccines offer little advantage over inactivated virus vaccines in terms of inducing serum or secretory antibody or local immunological memory. Studies are needed to determine whether both vaccines in combination are more efficacious than inactivated vaccine alone in people in this age group.
在一项双盲随机试验中,102名健康老年人接种了以下四种制剂之一:(i)鼻内双价减毒活流感疫苗,含冷适应的A/川崎/86(H1N1)和冷适应的A/贝塞斯达/85(H3N2)病毒;(ii)肠胃外三价亚病毒颗粒灭活疫苗,含A/台湾/86(H1N1)、A/列宁格勒/86(H3N2)和B/安阿伯/86抗原;(iii)两种疫苗;或(iv)安慰剂。为了确定局部或全身免疫是否增强黏膜免疫记忆,12周后所有志愿者均经鼻接种灭活病毒疫苗进行激发试验。我们采用血凝抑制试验检测血清中的抗体,并用动力学酶联免疫吸附试验分别检测血清和鼻洗液中的免疫球蛋白G(IgG)和IgA抗体。与活病毒疫苗相比,灭活病毒疫苗引起血清抗体升高更高且更频繁,而鼻洗液抗体反应相似。联合疫苗诱导血清和局部抗体的频率略高于单独使用灭活疫苗。甲型流感活病毒疫苗的共同接种并未改变对灭活疫苗中乙型流感病毒成分的血清抗体反应。在活疫苗、灭活疫苗或联合疫苗组中,鼻内灭活病毒激发引起的回忆性鼻抗体反应与未预先免疫的安慰剂组中观察到的反应无差异。这些结果表明,对于老年人而言,在诱导血清或分泌性抗体或局部免疫记忆方面,冷适应甲型流感病毒疫苗相比灭活病毒疫苗优势不大。需要开展研究以确定在该年龄组人群中,两种疫苗联合使用是否比单独使用灭活疫苗更有效。