TY - JOUR
T1 - Variable efficacy of repeated annual influenza vaccination
AU - Smith, Derek J.
AU - Forrest, Stephanie
AU - Ackley, David H.
AU - Perelson, Alan S.
PY - 1999/11/23
Y1 - 1999/11/23
N2 - Conclusions have differed in studies that have compared vaccine efficacy in groups receiving influenza vaccine for the first time to efficacy in groups vaccinated more than once. For example, the Hoskins study [Hoskins, T. W., Davis, J. R., Smith, A. J., Miller, C. L. and Aiichin, A. (1979) Lancet i, 33-35] concluded that repeat vaccination was not protective in the long term, whereas the Keitel study [Keitel, W. A., Cate, T. R., Couch, R. B., Huggins, L. L. and Hess, K. R. (1997) Vaccine 15, 1114-1122] concluded that repeat vaccination provided continual protection. We propose an explanation, the antigenic distance hypothesis, and test it by analyzing seven influenza outbreaks that occurred during the Hoskins and Keitel studies. The hypothesis is that variation in repeat vaccine efficacy is due to differences in antigenic distances among vaccine strains and between the vaccine strains and the epidemic strain in each outbreak. To test the hypothesis, antigenic distances were calculated from historical hemagglutination inhibition assay tables, and a computer model of the immune response was used to predict the vaccine efficacy of individuals given different vaccinations. The model accurately predicted the observed vaccine efficacies in repeat vaccinees relative to the efficacy in first-time vaccinees (correlation 0.87). Thus, the antigenic distance hypotheSiS offers a parsimonious explanation of the differences between and within the Hoskins and Keitel studies. These results have implications for the selection of influenza vaccine strains, and also for vaccination strategies for other antigenically variable pathogens that might require repeated vaccination.
AB - Conclusions have differed in studies that have compared vaccine efficacy in groups receiving influenza vaccine for the first time to efficacy in groups vaccinated more than once. For example, the Hoskins study [Hoskins, T. W., Davis, J. R., Smith, A. J., Miller, C. L. and Aiichin, A. (1979) Lancet i, 33-35] concluded that repeat vaccination was not protective in the long term, whereas the Keitel study [Keitel, W. A., Cate, T. R., Couch, R. B., Huggins, L. L. and Hess, K. R. (1997) Vaccine 15, 1114-1122] concluded that repeat vaccination provided continual protection. We propose an explanation, the antigenic distance hypothesis, and test it by analyzing seven influenza outbreaks that occurred during the Hoskins and Keitel studies. The hypothesis is that variation in repeat vaccine efficacy is due to differences in antigenic distances among vaccine strains and between the vaccine strains and the epidemic strain in each outbreak. To test the hypothesis, antigenic distances were calculated from historical hemagglutination inhibition assay tables, and a computer model of the immune response was used to predict the vaccine efficacy of individuals given different vaccinations. The model accurately predicted the observed vaccine efficacies in repeat vaccinees relative to the efficacy in first-time vaccinees (correlation 0.87). Thus, the antigenic distance hypotheSiS offers a parsimonious explanation of the differences between and within the Hoskins and Keitel studies. These results have implications for the selection of influenza vaccine strains, and also for vaccination strategies for other antigenically variable pathogens that might require repeated vaccination.
KW - Antigenic distance
KW - Original antigenic sin
KW - Repeated vaccination
KW - Vaccine efficacy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033598711&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033598711&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1073/pnas.96.24.14001
DO - 10.1073/pnas.96.24.14001
M3 - Article
C2 - 10570188
AN - SCOPUS:0033598711
SN - 0027-8424
VL - 96
SP - 14001
EP - 14006
JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
IS - 24
ER -