Importance and value of adjuvanted influenza vaccine in the care of older adults from a European perspective – A systematic review of recently published literature on real-world data

The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

As compared with a standard-dose vaccine, a high-dose, trivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) improves antibody responses to influenza among adults 65 years of age or older. This study evaluated whether IIV3-HD also improves protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza illness.

The first clinical trial of an MF59(®)-adjuvanted influenza vaccine (Novartis) was conducted 20 years ago in 1992. The product that emerged (Fluad(®), Novartis) was licensed first in Italy in 1997 and is now licensed worldwide in 30 countries. US licensure is expected in the coming years. By contrast, many alternative adjuvanted vaccines have failed to progress. The key decisions that allowed MF59 to succeed in such a challenging environment are highlighted here and the lessons that were learned along the way are discussed. MF59 was connected to vaccines that did not succeed and was perceived as a 'failure' before it was a success. Importantly, it never failed for safety reasons and was always well tolerated. Even when safety issues have emerged for alternative adjuvants, careful analysis of the substantial safety database for MF59 have shown that there are no significant concerns with widespread use, even in more 'sensitive' populations.