Quadrivalent influenza vaccine: a new opportunity to reduce the influenza burden

V. TISA1, I. BARBERIS1, V. FACCIO1, C. PAGANINO1, C. TRUCCHI1, M. MARTINI1, F. ANSALDI1, 2

1 Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; 2 IRCCS AOU S. Martino, IST Genoa, Italy

Keywords

Quadrivalent influenza vaccine • Safety • Immunogenicity • Cost-effectiveness

Summary

Influenza illness is caused by influenza A and influenza B strains. Although influenza A viruses are perceived to carry greater risk because they account for the majority of influenza cases in most seasons and have been responsible for influenza pandemics, influ- enza B viruses also impose a substantial public health burden, particularly among children and at-risk subjects.

Furthermore, since the 2001-2002 influenza season, both influ- enza B lineages, B/Victoria-like viruses and B/Yamagata-like viruses have co-circulated in Europe.

The conventional trivalent influenza vaccines have shown a lim- ited ability to induce effective protection when major or minor mismatches between the influenza B vaccine component and cir- culating strains occur. For this reason, the inclusion of a second B strain in influenza vaccines may help to overcome the well-known

difficulties of predicting the circulating B lineage and choosing the influenza B vaccine component.

Two quadrivalent influenza vaccines, a live-attenuated quad- rivalent influenza vaccine (Q/LAIV) and a split inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (I/QIV), were first licensed in the US in 2012. Since their introduction, models simulat- ing the inclusion of QIV in influenza immunization programs have demonstrated the substantial health benefits, in terms of reducing the number of influenza cases, their complications and mortality.

In the near future, evaluations from simulation models should be confirmed by effectiveness studies in the field, and more cost- effectiveness analyses should be conducted in order to verify the expected benefits.

Introduction

Influenza is an acute viral illness of the respiratory tract, and constitutes a substantial public health bur- den in terms of morbidity, mortality and related costs. About 3-5 million cases of severe illness occur each year worldwide, resulting in about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths per year, high hospitalization and mortality rates, and considerable loss of productivity [1-3].

From a microbiologic point of view, type A and type B Influenza viruses differ markedly in terms of their hosts and epidemiology. Influenza A viruses have other animal reservoirs, in addition to humans, and display high antigenic variability, which mainly in- volves their surface glycoproteins: hemagglutinin (HA) and neuroaminidase (NA). Antigenic shift and antigenic drift are the two well-known mechanisms responsible for major and minor variations; antigenic shift is the main cause of the appearance of new in- fluenza A strains with pandemic potential. Antigenic drift determines annual seasonal influenza epidem- ics [4].

Influenza B viruses, for which humans are the sole host of epidemiological relevance, do not undergo antigenic shift, but they can undergo antigenic drift. Since at least 1983, two parallel evolutionary B path- ways with little antigenic cross-reactivity have been

recognized, thus allowing two distinct genetic lin- eages to be identified: the B/Victoria/2/1987 (Victo- ria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (Yamagata) strains [5- 6]. Since 2002, the two distinct influenza B lineages have frequently co-circulated, with one of the two predominating over the other in each season [7]. For example, in ten consecutive influenza seasons in Ita- ly – from 2003-2004 to 2012-2013 – variations in the prevalence of circulating B lineages were reported: in 2007/2008 and 2012/2013, B viruses accounted for 47.7% and 58%, respectively, of viruses isolated, while in other seasons B viruses co-circulated with virus A, although with a lower prevalence [8].

Vaccination is the most effective means of reducing the number of influenza cases and related complica- tions. Annual influenza immunization is, in particu- lar, recommended in elderly subjects, children aged six months or more, pregnant women and individu- als with chronic conditions, such as respiratory/heart/ liver diseases, diabetes, or a weakened immune sys- tem. Indeed, these categories are at heightened risk of influenza-related complications and mortality [9]. In Italy, the National Ministry of Health annually pub- lishes influenza prevention recommendations, speci- fying the groups to whom vaccination is offered free of charge. In addition, the Ministry sets a minimum target of vaccination coverage of 75% and an optimal target of 95% [10].

Tab. I. Influenza vaccination strains and viruses circulating in the northern hemisphere in the seasons from 1995/96 to 2015/2016.

Legend: in yellow: minor mismatches; in red: major mismatches; in green: new influenza A strains with pandemic potential.

The World Health Organization (WHO) annually rec- ommends vaccine composition on the basis of global virological surveillance. Annual trivalent influenza vac- cines (TIVs) contain two influenza A strains (H1N1 and H3N2) and only one influenza B virus. The effectiveness of TIVs therefore depends on the degree of matching be- tween the vaccine strain and circulating viral strains.

In the last two decades, four major and at least eight mi- nor mismatches between vaccine and circulating B vi- ruses have occurred in the northern hemisphere, thus impairing the performances of TIVs (Tab. I) [6]. Spe- cifically, Ambrose CS and colleagues observed that, in Europe, a B-mismatch between vaccine and circulating strains occurred in 5 of 10 seasons between 2001 and 2011 [7]. The effect of antigenic mismatching between vaccine and circulating strains on vaccine effective- ness has emerged from observational and experimental studies [6, 11-14]. A recent meta-analysis by the Cen- ters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Marshfield Foundation reported that trivalent subunit or split influenza vaccines displayed good effectiveness in preventing lab-confirmed influenza illness when match- ing was good, but that vaccine effectiveness decreased when a drifted strain dominated the epidemiological picture [15]. Therefore, inaccurate prediction of the pre- dominant influenza B lineage leaves many vaccinated individuals with suboptimal protection against influ- enza B disease caused by the influenza B lineage not included in the licensed trivalent vaccine [11].

To minimize the impact of B-mismatch on vaccine effectiveness, in February 2009 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for the first time, considered the inclusion of an additional influenza B strain in the antigenic composition of seasonal influenza vac- cines [16]. Subsequently, in February 2012, the WHO recommended the production of quadrivalent influ- enza vaccines (QIVs) for seasonal immunization. In 2012, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also highlighted the need for a quadrivalent vaccine that could overcome the lack of protection against the in- fluenza B lineage not present in the trivalent vaccine. Finally, in February 2013, the WHO issued its first guidelines recommending that both expected B-strains be included in the vaccine composition [17-18].

In recent years, scientific research has addressed this need, and two quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVs) have been developed: a live-attenuated quadrivalent in- fluenza vaccine (Q/LAIV) and a split inactivated quadri- valent influenza vaccine (I/QIV) [19].

Main evidence from pre- and post- marketing evaluations of licensed quadrivalent influenza vaccines

The immunogenicity, safety and tolerability of quadriva- lent influenza vaccines have been evaluated in children, adults and the elderly in several clinical trials.

Live-attenuated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Q/LAIV)

Q/LAIV has mainly been tested in children. A phase- III, randomized, double-blind study performed on 2,312 children aged 2-17 years demonstrated that the immu- nogenicity of an investigational Q/LAIV was non-infe- rior to that of two licensed T/LAIVs, one containing a B strain from the Yamagata lineage and the other con- taining a strain from the Victoria lineage. Moreover, this Q/LAIV proved safe and well tolerated [20].

Since 2014/2015, Q/LAIV has been used in a universal pediatric vaccination programme in the United Kingdom (UK). In this real-life scenario, the vaccine was seen to provide significant protection against drifted circulating influenza B viruses [21].

Inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine

(I/QIV)

Children and adolescents

With respect to I/QIV, a phase II study was conducted in two groups of children aged 18-47 months: the first group was constituted by children who had received two doses of TIV in the previous season and who re- ceived one dose of TIV or I/QIV in the study season; the second group was composed of unprimed children who received two doses of I/QIV or TIV 28 days apart during the study season. In comparison with the TIV, the I/QIV displayed superior immunogenicity towards the alternative-lineage B strain, without impairing the immune responses to shared strains. Moreover, the two vaccines proved similar in terms of reactogenicity and safety [22]. These results were confirmed in a random- ized phase III study conducted by Domachowske JB and colleagues in healthy children aged 3-17 years [23]. Langley and colleagues also investigated the immuno- genicity and safety of a I/QIV candidate versus TIVs, in a phase-III randomized controlled trial involving 3,094 children aged 3-17 years. The I/QIV was non-inferior to the TIVs in terms of immunogenicity towards the shared strains (A/H3N2 and A/H1N1), and, in comparison with TIV controls, elicited superior responses to the added B strains. Solicited reactions, unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the I/QIV and pooled TIV groups [24].

Adults and elderly

The promising results obtaining with I/QIV in children were also confirmed in clinical trials performed in adult populations.

In a phase-III clinical trial comparing I/QIV with TIV/ Victoria and TIV/Yamagata vaccines, 4,659 adult volun- teers received one vaccine dose. Overall, the I/QIV was highly immunogenic and, on day 21, displayed greater immunogenicity towards the additional B strain than TIV, without interfering with the antibody responses to the three shared antigens [25]. The I/QIV candidate was also tested in 1,565 adults aged ≥ 18 years in a phase III, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter trial during

the 2011/2012 influenza season. For all four vaccine strains, antibody responses to the I/QIV were non-in- ferior to those elicited by the TIV for matched strains. For both B strains, antibody responses to the I/QIV were non-inferior to the response to the TIV for the matched strains, and were superior to the responses elicited by the TIVs that lacked the corresponding B strain. The I/QIV also confirmed its acceptable safety profile in an adult population [26].

The safety of I/QIV was investigated through a routine surveillance system in Western Australia in 2015 in a sample of 1,685 healthcare workers (HCWs). The re- sults indicated little difference between the reactogenic- ity of I/QIV and that of TIV; the percentage of HCWs re- porting pain or swelling at the injection site was slightly higher among those who had received I/QIV than those who had received TIV (6.9% vs 4.2%, respectively; p = 0.02) [27].

The safety of I/QIVs was verified in a review of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US from 7/1/2013 to 5/31/2015. The most frequent non-fatal serious adverse events were: in- jection site reactions, such as pain and erythema, consti- tutional symptoms, Guillain-Barré syndrome, seizures, and anaphylaxis, though these were rare or very rare. Adverse events reported to the VAERS following I/QIVs were similar to those following TIVs [28].

On the basis of this evidence, the two quadrivalent in- fluenza vaccines have recently been licensed in many countries, and have been gradually replacing TIVs in the immunization programs of these countries.

Expected benefits of the quadrivalent influenza vaccines

As mentioned above, two different influenza B strains may co-circulate during an influenza season. Therefore, adding a second B strain to influenza vaccines increases the likelihood of achieving adequate protection against influenza B disease. Some recent studies have evaluated the expected benefits of including QIVs in national im- munization programs. For instance, Eichner et al. com- pared the effects of QIVs and TIVs on influenza inci- dence by using an individual simulation model in which the concomitant transmission of four influenza strains, maternal protection, boosting of existing immunity, loss of immunity and cross-immunizing events between the B lineages over 50 years were considered as variables. Their study found that QIV administration could pre- vent 11.2% of all influenza B infections which still oc- cur with TIV, thus reducing the influenza burden on the community [29].

The public health impact of QIVs in the United States was analyzed in a model by Crépey and colleagues in a dynamic retrospective framework with real-life vaccine mismatch.

Assuming 70% cross-protection of the efficacy of a matching vaccine, the model predicted that QIV would have prevented, on average, about 16% more B lineage

cases than TIV over the period 2000-2013 [30]. The el- derly (≥ 65 years) and adults aged 50-64 years were seen to benefit most from QIV, with 21% and 18% reduc- tions, respectively, in B lineage cases [30].

Van Bellinghen et al. conducted a lifetime economic evaluation of QIVs in comparison with TIVs in elderly people and clinical risk groups in the UK. Using a multi- cohort Markov model, they estimated that quadrivalent influenza vaccination could further reduce the disease burden of influenza. The QIVs would be expected to re- sult in substantial health benefits, reducing the number of symptomatic influenza cases, medical visits, compli- cations, hospitalizations for complications and deaths, in comparison with TIVs [31]. In the UK, another study by Meier et al. applied a lifetime, multi-cohort static Mar- kov model involving seven age-groups, and obtained analogous findings [32].

Thommes EW and colleagues used an age-stratified, dy- namic four-strain transmission model which incorporated strain interaction, transmission-rate seasonality and age- specific mixing in the population, in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent influenza vaccines in Canada and the United Kingdom. The results of this analysis revealed that switching from trivalent to quadri- valent vaccines would be a cost-effective means of further reducing the burden of influenza in both countries [33]. You JH and colleagues simulated the outcomes of QIV vs. TIV in 6 age-groups: 0-4 years, 5-9 years, 10-

14 years, 15-64 years, 65-79 years and ≥ 80 years. Direct cost alone, direct and indirect costs, and loss of quality- adjusted life-years (QALYs) due to TIV-unmatched in- fluenza B infection were simulated for each study arm. In the base-case analysis, QIV was more effective than TIV in all age-groups, and proved to be cost-effective from the societal perspective in all age-groups, except for those aged 15-64 years. From the healthcare pro- vider’s perspective, QIV seemed to be cost-effective in very young (6 months – 9 years) and older (≥ 80 years) age-groups [34].

In Italy, a lifetime, multi-cohort, static Markov model was constructed, and was run in one-year cycles for a lifetime (Maximum age: 100 years). The analysis dem- onstrated that QIV would be cost-effective compared with TIV. Specifically, QIV would be expected to reduce the number of influenza cases (by about 1,413.887), complications (by about 169,638), hospitalizations for complications (by about 41,862) and influenza deaths (by about 20,905). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was € 18,883/QALY for the base case [8].

Conclusions

Influenza B viruses have a considerable public health burden, particularly among children and at-risk subjects. The belief that influenza B illness is less severe than influenza A leads to underestimation of its real impact. However, the type B influenza virus causes 20% to 25% of influenza infections worldwide. Since the mid-1980s, surveillance data have shown frequent co-circulation

of both influenza B lineages, B/Victoria-like and B/ Yamagata-like, during influenza seasons. The conven- tional TIVs, containing only a single B strain, showed limited ability to induce effective protection when major or minor mismatches between the influenza B vaccine component and the circulating strains occurred, thus substantially reducing the clinical effectiveness of the trivalent influenza vaccine [35].

The availability of QIVs may contribute to overcoming the well-known difficulties of predicting the circulating B lineage and choosing the right influenza B vaccine component in trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs) [36]. In recent years, two QIVs, an inactivated vaccine and a live-attenuated vaccine, have been developed and li- censed for human use on the basis of the good safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles demonstrated during the entire pre-marketing research process [37]. In some countries, such as Canada, national guidelines now recommend QIVs in preference to trivalent vaccines for use in children and young people [38].

Available models simulating the inclusion of QIVs in influenza immunization programs support the benefits of this new preventive tool in terms of reductions in symptomatic influenza cases and related complications. Indeed, QIVs could reduce both direct costs in term of medical visits, hospitalizations and antibiotic prescrip- tions, and indirect costs related to working days lost by affected people and their caregivers.

However, some issues need to be addressed in the near future. In particular, estimations from simulation models should be confirmed by effectiveness studies in the field and more cost-effectiveness analyses should be conduct- ed in order to verify the expected advantages in different epidemiological scenarios.

Acknowledgments

No funding declared for this overview.

References

[1] Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, Brammer L, Bridges CB, Cox NJ, Fukuda K. Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA 2004;292:1333-40.

[2] Lafond KE, Nair H, Rasooly MH, Valente F, Booy R, Rahman M, Kitsutani P, Yu H, Guzman G, Coulibaly D, Armero J, Jima D, Howie SR, Ampofo W, Mena R, Chadha M, Sampurno OD, Emukule GO, Nurmatov Z, Corwin A, Heraud JM, Noyola DE, Cojocaru R, Nymadawa P, Barakat A, Adedeji A, von Horoch M, Olveda R, Nyatanyi T, Venter M, Mmbaga V, Chittaganpitch M, Nguyen TH, Theo A, Whaley M, Azziz-Baumgartner E, Bre- see J, Campbell H, Widdowson MA; Global Respiratory Hos- pitalizations—Influenza Proportion Positive (GRIPP) Working Group.. Global Respiratory Hospitalizations—Influenza Pro- portion Positive (GRIPP) Working Group. Global role and bur- den of influenza in pediatric respiratory hospitalizations, 1982- 2012: a systematic analysis. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1001977.

[3] World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.who.int/ mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/ [Accessed on 10/01/16]

[4] Zambon MC. Epidemiology and pathogenesis of influenza. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999;44(Suppl B):3-9.

[5] McCullers JA, Wang GC, He S, Webster RG. Reassortment and insertion-deletion are strategies for the evolution of influenza B viruses in nature. J Virol 1999;73:7343-8.

[6] Rota PA, Wallis TR, Harmon MW, Rota JS, Kendal AP, Nerome

K. Co-circulation of two distinct evolutionary lineages of influ- enza type B virus since 1983. Virology 1990;175:59-68.

[7] Ambrose CS, Levin MJ. The rationale for quadrivalent influ- enza vaccines. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2012;8:81-8.

[8] Kheiraoui F, Cadeddu C, Quaranta G, Poscia A, Raponi M, de Waure C, Boccalini S, Pellegrino E, Bellini I, Pieri L, Bechini A, Bonanni P, Barbieri M, Castagna S, Lapinet J, Marinello G, Tosatto R, Silvestri R. Health technology assessment del vac- cino antinfluenzale quadrivalente FLU-QIV (Fluarix TetrA®). It J Public Health 2015;4:5.

[9] Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Olsen SJ, Bresee JS, Broder KR, Karron RA. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2015-16 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:818-25.

[10] Circular Letter of the Italian Ministry of Health dated on 09/03/2015. Available at: http://www.trovanorme.salute.gov. it/norme/renderNormsanPdf?anno=0&codLeg=52703&par te=1%20&serie= [Accessed on 10/01/16]

[11] Ansaldi F, D’Agaro P, De Florentiis D, Puzelli S, Lin YP, Greg- ory V, Bennett M, Donatelli I, Gasparini R, Crovari P, Hay A, Campello C. Molecular characterization of influenza B viruses circulating in northern Italy during the 2001-2002 epidemic season. J Med Virol 2003;70:463-9.

[12] Jennings Z, Carter I, McPhie K, Kok J, Dwyer DE. Increased prevalence of influenza B/Victoria lineage viruses during early stages of the 2015 influenza season in New South Wales, Aus- tralia: implications for vaccination and planning. Euro Surveill 2015;20.pii:21201.

[13] Belongia EA, Kieke BA, Donahue JG, Greenlee RT, Balish A, Foust A, Lindstrom S, Shay DK; Marshfield Influenza Study Group. Effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines varied substantially with antigenic match from the 2004-2005 season to the 2006-2007 season. J Infect Dis 2009;199:159-67.

[14] Lo YC, Chuang JH, Kuo HW, Huang WT, Hsu YF, Liu MT, Chen CH, Huang HH, Chang CH, Chou JH, Chang FY, Lin TY, Chiu WT. Surveillance and vaccine effectiveness of an influ- enza epidemic predominated by vaccine-mismatched influenza B/Yamagata-lineage viruses in Taiwan, 2011-12 season. PLoS One 2013;8:e58222.

[15] Hannoun C. The evolving history of influenza viruses and influ- enza vaccines. Expert Rev Vaccines 2013;12:1085-94.

[16] Fda Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisory- Committees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesan- dOtherBiologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvi- soryCommittee/UCM167159.pdf [Accessed on 10/01/16]

[17] World Health Organization. Summary of status of development and availability of influenza B (Yamagata and Victoria lineage) candidate vaccine viruses* and potency testing reagents. Avail- able at: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/summary_b_ cvv_reagents_4_may_2011.pdf. [Accessed on 10/01/16]

[18] European Medicines Agency issues recommendations for 2012/2013 seasonal flu vaccine composition. Avail- able at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/ news_and_events/news/2012/03/news_detail_001467. jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1. [Accessed on 20/01/16]

[19] Darvishian M, Bijlsma MJ, Hak E, van den Heuvel ER. Effec- tiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine in community-dwelling elderly people: a meta-analysis of test-negative design case- control studies. Lancet Infect Dis 2014;14:1228-39.

[20] Block SL, Falloon J, Hirschfield JA, Krilov LR, Dubovsky F, Yi T, Belshe RB. Immunogenicity and safety of a quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2012; 31:745-51.

[21] Pebody R, Warburton F, Andrews N, Ellis J, von Wissmann B, Robertson C, Yonova I, Cottrell S, Gallagher N, Green H, Thompson C, Galiano M, Marques D, Gunson R, Reynolds A, Moore C, Mullett D, Pathirannehelage S, Donati M, Johnston J, de Lusignan S, McMenamin J, Zambon M. Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in primary care in the United Kingdom: 2014/15 end of season results. Euro Surveill 2015;20:1-11.

[22] Rodriguez Weber MA, Claeys C, Aranza Doniz C, Feng Y, Innis BL, Jain VK, Peeters M. Immunogenicity and safety of inacti- vated quadrivalent and trivalent influenza vaccines in children 18-47 months of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2014;33:1262-9.

[23] Domachowske JB, Pankow-Culot H, Bautista M, Feng Y, Claeys C, Peeters M, Innis BL, Jain V. A randomized trial of candidate inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine versus tri- valent influenza vaccines in children aged 3-17 years. J Infect Dis 2013;207:1878-87.

[24] Langley JM, Carmona Martinez A, Chatterjee A, Halperin SA, McNeil S, Reisinger KS, Aggarwal N, Huang LM, Peng CT, Garcia-Sicilia J, Salamanca de la Cueva I, Cabañas F, Treviño- Garza C, Rodríguez-Weber MA, de la O M, Chandrasekaran V, Dewé W, Liu A, Innis BL, Jain VK. Immunogenicity and safety of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine candidate: a phase III randomized controlled trial in children. J Infect Dis 2013;208:544-53.

[25] Kieninger D, Sheldon E, Lin WY, Yu CJ, Bayas JM, Gabor JJ, Esen M, Fernandez Roure JL, Narejos Perez S, Alvarez Sanchez C, Feng Y, Claeys C, Peeters M, Innis BL, Jain V. Immuno- genicity, reactogenicity and safety of an inactivated quadriva- lent influenza vaccine candidate versus inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine: a phase III, randomized trial in adults aged

≥ 18 years. BMC Infect Dis 2013;13:343.

[26] Pépin S, Donazzolo Y, Jambrecina A, Salamand C, Saville M. Safety and immunogenicity of a quadrivalent inactivated influ- enza vaccine in adults. Vaccine 2013;31: 5572-8.

[27] Regan AK, Tracey L, Gibbs R. Post-marketing surveillance of adverse events following immunization with inactivated quad- rivalent and trivalent influenza vaccine in health care providers in Western Australia. Vaccine 2015;33:6149-51.

[28] Haber P, Moro PL, Lewis P, Woo EJ, Jankosky C, Cano M. Post-licensure surveillance of quadrivalent inactivated influ- enza (IIV4) vaccine in the United States, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), July 1, 2013-May 31, 2015. Vaccine

2016. pii:S0264-410X(16)30031-7.

[29] Eichner M, Schwehm M, Hain J, Uphoff H, Salzberger B, Knuf M, Schmidt-Ott R. 4Flu - an individual based simulation tool to study the effects of quadrivalent vaccination on seasonal influ- enza in Germany. BMC Infectious Diseases 2014;14:365.

[30] Crépey P, de Boer PT, Postma MJ, Pitman R. Retrospective public health impact of a quadrivalent influenza vaccine in the United States. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2015;9(Suppl 1):39-46.

[31] Van Bellinghen LA, Meier G, Van Vlaenderen I. The potential cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in elderly people and clinical risk groups in the UK: a lifetime multi-cohort model. PLoS One 2014;9:e98437.

[32] Meier G, Gregg M, Poulsen Nautrup B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent influenza vaccination in at-risk adults and the elderly: an updated analysis in the UK. J Med Econom 2015;18:746-76.

[33] Thommes EW, Ismaila A, Chit A, Meier G, Bauch CT. Cost- effectiveness evaluation of quadrivalent influenza vaccines for seasonal influenza prevention: a dynamic modeling study of Canada and the United Kingdom. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:465.

[34] You JH, Ming WK, Chan PK. Cost-effectiveness of quadriva- lent influenza vaccine in Hong Kong – A decision analysis. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2015;11:564-71.

[35] Tafalla M, Buijssen M, Geets R, Noordegraaf-Schouten MV. A comprehensive review of the epidemiology and disease burden

of influenza B in 9 European countries. Hum Vaccin Immunoth- er 2016:1-10. [Epub ahead of print]

[36] van de Sandt CE, Bodewes R, Rimmelzwaan GF, de Vries RD. Influenza B viruses: not to be discounted. Future Microbiol 2015;10:1447-65.

[37] Bekkat-Berkani R, Ray R, Jain VK, Chandrasekaran V, Innis

BL. Evidence update: GlaxoSmithKline’s inactivated quadriva- lent influenza vaccines. Expert Rev Vaccines 2016;15:201-14.

[38] Moore DL; Canadian Paediatric Society, Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee. Vaccine recommendations for children and youth for the 2014/2015 influenza season. Paediatr Child Health 2014;19:440-4.

n Received on February 13, 2016 - Accepted on February 29, 2016

n Correspondence: Ilaria Barberis, Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, via A. Pastore 1, 16132 Genoa, Italy - Tel.

+39 010 3538123 - Fax +39 010 505618 E-mail: ilaria.barberis@ fastwebnet.it