Robert Jeanfreau

Bio: Robert Jeanfreau is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Vaccination & Influenza vaccine. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 14 publications receiving 177 citations.

A Single Dose of Unadjuvanted Novel 2009 H1N1 Vaccine Is Immunogenic and Well Tolerated in Young and Elderly Adults

Abstract: Background When the novel H1N1 influenza A strain appeared in April of 2009, development of novel H1N1 vaccines became a public health priority. Methods We conducted a phase‐2, multicenter, randomized, placebo‐controlled, observer‐blind clinical trial of a 2009 H1N1 vaccine in 1313 young (age, 18-64 years) and older (age, >or=65 years) adults. Participants were randomized 1:4:4:4 to receive 2 doses of placebo or 7.5, 15, or 30 μg of H1N1 hemagglutinin administered 21 days apart. In post hoc analyses, hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers measured at baseline and after vaccination were analyzed for young adults (age, 18-64 years), "younger elderly" adults (age, 65-74 years), and "very elderly" adults (age, >or=75 years). Results At baseline, 28.8% of young adults, 43.9% of younger elderly adults, and 62.9% of very elderly adults had HI titers to A/2009 H1N1 of >or=1:40. A single 7.5‐μg dose induced HI titers >or=1:40 in 94.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.8%-96.3%) of all adults. After one 7.5‐μg dose, the geometric mean titers achieved were 326.4 (95% CI, 275.9-386.0) in young adults, 155.4 (95% CI, 123.4-195.8) in "younger elderly" adults, and 243.9 (95% CI, 167.1-356.0) in "very elderly" adults. Conclusions This large phase-2 trial demonstrated that a single 7.5‐μg dose of a monovalent unadjuvanted H1N1 vaccine induced protective HI antibody levels in adults of all ages, including very elderly adults. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00958126.

Immunogenicity and safety of a booster dose of a quadrivalent meningococcal tetanus toxoid-conjugate vaccine (MenACYW-TT) in adolescents and adults: a Phase III randomized study

Abstract: The quadrivalent meningococcal tetanus toxoid-conjugate vaccine (MenACYW-TT) was assessed as a booster in this Phase III trial (NCT02752906). Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4)-pri...

Time to Change Dosing of Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Young Children: Evidence From a Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Abstract: Background. Children under 3 years of age may benefit from a double-dose of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) instead of the standard-dose. Methods. We compared the only United States-licensed standard-dose IIV4 (0.25 mL, 7.5 µg hemagglutinin per influenza strain) versus double-dose IIV4 manufactured by a different process (0.5 mL, 15 µg per strain) in a phase III, randomized, observer-blind trial in children 6-35 months of age (NCT02242643). The primary objective was to demonstrate immunogenic noninferiority of the double-dose for all vaccine strains 28 days after last vaccination. Immunogenic superiority of the double-dose was evaluated post hoc. Immunogenicity was assessed in the per-protocol cohort (N = 2041), and safety was assessed in the intent-to-treat cohort (N = 2424). Results. Immunogenic noninferiority of double-dose versus standard-dose IIV4 was demonstrated in terms of geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and seroconversion rate difference. Superior immunogenicity against both vaccine B strains was observed with double-dose IIV4 in children 6-17 months of age (GMT ratio = 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.64-2.17, B/Yamagata; GMT ratio = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.82-2.50, B/Victoria) and in unprimed children of any age (GMT ratio = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.59-2.13, B/Yamagata; GMT ratio = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.79-2.33, B/Victoria). Safety and reactogenicity, including fever, were similar despite the higher antigen content and volume of the double-dose IIV4. There were no attributable serious adverse events. Conclusions. Double-dose IIV4 may improve protection against influenza B in some young children and simplifies annual influenza vaccination by allowing the same vaccine dose to be used for all eligible children and adults.

AS03B-Adjuvanted H5N1 Influenza Vaccine in Children 6 Months Through 17 Years of Age: A Phase 2/3 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Observer-Blinded Trial

Abstract: Background. This phase 2/3, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded study assessed the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety of an inactivated, split-virion H5N1 influenza vaccine (A/Indonesia/5/2005) in children aged 6 months through 17 years. Methods. Children received 2 influenza vaccine doses 21 days apart, each containing 1.9 µg of hemagglutinin and AS03B adjuvant (5.93 mg of α-tocopherol). The randomization ratio was 8:3 for vaccine to placebo, with equal allocation between 3 age strata (6–35 months, 3–8 years, and 9–17 years). Immunogenicity against the vaccine strain was assessed 21 days after the first and second vaccine doses for all vaccinees, at day 182 for half, and at day 385 for the remaining half. Reactogenicity after each dose and safety up to 1 year after vaccination were evaluated. Results. Within each age stratum, the lower limit of the 98.3% confidence interval for the day 42 seroprotection rate was ≥70%, thus fulfilling the US and European licensure criteria. The immune responses elicited by vaccine persisted well above baseline levels for 1 year. The vaccine was more reactogenic than placebo, but no major safety concerns were identified. Conclusions. AS03B-adjuvanted H5N1 influenza vaccine was immunogenic and showed an acceptable safety profile in all age groups studied. Clinical Trials Registration. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01310413","term_id":"NCT01310413"}}NCT01310413.

A randomized controlled study to evaluate the immunogenicity of a trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine at two dosages in children 6 to 35 months of age.

Abstract: The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine Fluarix™ is licensed in the US for adults and children from 3 years old. This randomized observer-blind study (NCT00764790) evaluated Fluarix™ at two doses; 0.25 ml (Flu-25) and 0.5 ml (Flu-50) in children aged 6–35 months. The primary objective was to demonstrate immunogenic non-inferiority vs. a control vaccine (Fluzone®; 0.25 ml). Children received Flu-25 (n = 1107), Flu-50 (n = 1106) or control vaccine (n = 1104) at Day 0 and for un-primed children, also on Day 28. Serum hemagglutination-inhibition titers were determined pre-vaccination and at Day 28 (primed) or Day 56 (un-primed). Non-inferiority was assessed by post-vaccination geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio, (upper 95% confidence interval [CI] ≤ 1.5) and difference in seroconversion rate (upper 95% CI ≤ 10%). Reactogenicity/safety was monitored. The immune response to Flu-50 met all regulatory criteria. Indicated by adjusted GMT ratios [with 95% CI], the criteria for non-inferiority of Flu-50 vs. control vaccine were reached for the B/Florida strain (1.13 [1.01–1.25]) but not for the A/Brisbane/H1N1 (1.74 [1.54–1.98]) or A/Uruguay/H3N2 (1.72 [1.57–1.89]) strains. In children aged 18–35 months similar immune responses were observed for Flu-50 and the control vaccine. Flu-50 induced a higher response than Flu-25 for all strains. Temperature (≥ 37.5°C) was reported in 6.2%, 6.4%, and 6.6% of the Flu-25, Flu-50, and control group, respectively. Reactogenicity/safety endpoints were within the same range for all vaccines. In children aged 6–35 months, immune responses with Flu-50 fulfilled regulatory criteria but did not meet the pre-defined criteria for non-inferiority vs. control. This appeared to be due to differences in immunogenicity in children aged < 18 months.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2020-21 Influenza Season.

Abstract: This report updates the 2020-21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021-22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).The 2021-22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021-22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021-22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4. This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021-22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

Abstract: Background Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced worldwide. Healthy adults are presently targeted mainly in North America. Objectives Identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2010) and EMBASE (1990 to June 2010). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally-occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. We also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Main results We included 50 reports. Forty (59 sub-studies) were clinical trials of over 70,000 people. Eight were comparative non-RCTs and assessed serious harms. Two were reports of harms which could not be introduced in the data analysis. In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance. Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited. Authors' conclusions Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

How sex and age affect immune responses, susceptibility to infections, and response to vaccination

Abstract: Do men die young and sick, or do women live long and healthy? By trying to explain the sexual dimorphism in life expectancy, both biological and environmental aspects are presently being addressed. Besides age-related changes, both the immune and the endocrine system exhibit significant sex-specific differences. This review deals with the aging immune system and its interplay with sex steroid hormones. Together, they impact on the etiopathology of many infectious diseases, which are still the major causes of morbidity and mortality in people at old age. Among men, susceptibilities toward many infectious diseases and the corresponding mortality rates are higher. Responses to various types of vaccination are often higher among women thereby also mounting stronger humoral responses. Women appear immune-privileged. The major sex steroid hormones exhibit opposing effects on cells of both the adaptive and the innate immune system: estradiol being mainly enhancing, testosterone by and large suppressive. However, levels of sex hormones change with age. At menopause transition, dropping estradiol potentially enhances immunosenescence effects posing postmenopausal women at additional, yet specific risks. Conclusively during aging, interventions, which distinctively consider the changing level of individual hormones, shall provide potent options in maintaining optimal immune functions.

Factors That Influence the Immune Response to Vaccination

Abstract: There is substantial variation between individuals in the immune response to vaccination. In this review, we provide an overview of the plethora of studies that have investigated factors that influence humoral and cellular vaccine responses in humans. These include intrinsic host factors (such as age, sex, genetics, and comorbidities), perinatal factors (such as gestational age, birth weight, feeding method, and maternal factors), and extrinsic factors (such as preexisting immunity, microbiota, infections, and antibiotics). Further, environmental factors (such as geographic location, season, family size, and toxins), behavioral factors (such as smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, and sleep), and nutritional factors (such as body mass index, micronutrients, and enteropathy) also influence how individuals respond to vaccines. Moreover, vaccine factors (such as vaccine type, product, adjuvant, and dose) and administration factors (schedule, site, route, time of vaccination, and coadministered vaccines and other drugs) are also important. An understanding of all these factors and their impacts in the design of vaccine studies and decisions on vaccination schedules offers ways to improve vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy.