To the editor,
Historically, live attenuated, as opposed to inactivated, vaccines have been highly successful against many infectious diseases (see Ref. 1). However, curiously, seasonal live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIV) or “Flumist” have not demonstrated superior efficacy when compared to inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV), especially in the past several influenza seasons. 2 , 3 This is in striking contrast to animal models in which Flumist consistently exhibits a clear advantage over IIV in inducing not only robust humoral immunity but also cytotoxic T cell immunity, 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 which is believed to be important in cross‐protection against mismatched influenza viruses. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 The reason for this discrepancy between human and animal data is not fully understood, but host factors have been suggested to contribute to highly variable LAIV efficacy. 12 Given that chronic conditions, such as asthma, are highly prevalent among adults, that is, 1 in 13 (7.7%) adults in the United States according to centers for disease control and prevention (CDC), 13 we propose that they can negatively impact vaccine efficacy.
To test our hypothesis, we utilized mouse models of allergic airway disease (AAD) to assess LAIV efficacy in asthmatic mice (Figure 1A). LAIV‐elicited systemic IgG responses were significantly diminished in AAD mice (Figure 1B,C). Antibody class switching is a complex process that involves a number of different stimuli. 14 In particular, cytokines are known stimuli that direct antibody isotype switching. For example, the type 1 cytokine IFN‐γ drives class switching to IgG2a and the type 2 cytokine IL‐4 promotes switching to IgG1. 15 Since mouse models of asthma are known to trigger type 2‐biased immune responses, 16 , 17 it is plausible that the type 2 cytokine environment in AAD mice is suppressing type 1 immunity‐based LAIV. Indeed, analysis of IgG subclasses shows that type 1 immunity‐associated IgG2a was downregulated in AAD mice following intranasal (i.n.) LAIV vaccination (Figure 1B,C). Consistent with the systemic antibody profile, mucosal IgG and IgG2a antibodies were also suppressed in AAD mice (Figure 1D). In addition, mucosal IgA titer was reduced in mice with AAD (Figure 1D). We next investigated the protective efficacy of LAIV in AAD vs non‐AAD mice. While LAIV‐immunized AAD mice were protected against homologous challenge (data not shown), the cross‐protective efficacy against heterologous infection was severely compromised (Figure 1E). This observation is consistent with our previous report that live influenza virus infection establishes inferior mucosal antibody immunity in AAD mice. 18 Taken together, our results show that AAD is a host‐associated factor that can negatively impact LAIV efficacy. Our finding may help explain why LAIV efficacy is highly variable in humans. The implication of our finding is that vaccine research should consider the impact of host factors such as chronic diseases for evaluation of experimental vaccines because the magnitude of interference may differ depending on the vaccine type.
FIGURE 1.

Allergic airway disease negatively impacts LAIV. A, A schematic diagram of the ovalbumin (OVA)‐ and house dust mite (HDM)‐induced AAD and LAIV vaccination protocol. For OVA‐induced AAD, BALB/c mice were i.p. immunized twice with 10 μg of OVA in 4 mg of alum. The sensitized mice were challenged i.n. with 100 μg of OVA in PBS once daily for 5 days. For HDM‐induced AAD, BALB/c mice were treated i.n. with 50 μg of HDM in PBS three times per week for 3 weeks. At day 1 post allergic challenge, mice were vaccinated i.n. with 4 × 106 FFU of FluMist Quadrivalent 2015‐2016 formulation (MedImmune). B‐D, Serum and BALF samples collected 40 days after vaccination were tested for anti‐influenza antibody levels by ELISA (6‐10 mice per group). The results shown are representative of two similar experiments. *P < .05; **P < .01; ****P < .0001 as assessed by student's t‐test or ANOVA. E, Forty days after vaccination, the AAD mice or non‐AAD mice were infected i.n. with a lethal dose (2 × 104 PFU) of H1N1 PR8 strain. Survival was monitored for 20 days (3‐8 mice/group). The data shown is representative of two independent experiments. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan‐Meier log‐rank test. **P < .01
It is important to note that LAIV is not recommended for individuals with asthma due to increased incidence of wheezing post LAIV administration. 19 , 20 Further, people with severe asthma are often excluded from clinical trials that evaluate LAIV efficacy. Therefore, the use of LAIV among asthmatics has been relatively limited and whether asthma exacerbation has a negative effect on the efficacy of LAIV in humans remains unknown. In addition to asthma, other conditions that induce lung inflammation may also impact the efficacy of LAIV, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. 21 , 22 SARS‐CoV‐2 is particularly concerning given the high prevalence of asymptomatic infections, and therefore vaccine recipients may unknowingly receive LAIV vaccination while infected with SARS‐CoV‐2.
Further research efforts are clearly warranted to elucidate the precise mechanism by which allergic lung inflammation interferes with the B cell immunogenicity of LAIV. Knowing the detrimental immune pathway that exists in AAD mice may help design a better vaccination approach to circumvent the negative interference imposed by host factors.
FUNDING
Yoichi Furuya is supported by R56 AI146434 and American Heart Association Scientist Development Grant. Yoichi Furuya and Sreeja Roy are supported through The American Association of Immunologists Careers in Immunology Fellowship Program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no competing interests.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization: Yoichi Furuya, Sreeja Roy
Data Curation: Yoichi Furuya, Clare M. Williams
Formal Analysis: Yoichi Furuya
Funding Acquisition: Yoichi Furuya
Writing—Original Draft Preparation: Yoichi Furuya, Sreeja Roy, Clare M. Williams
Writing—Review & Editing: Yoichi Furuya, Sreeja Roy, Clare M. Williams
Yoichi Furuya had full access to all of the data in this study and takes complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Roy S, Williams CM, Furuya Y. Detrimental impact of allergic airway disease on live attenuated influenza vaccine. Health Sci Rep. 2021;4:e272. 10.1002/hsr2.272
Funding information American Association of Immunologists; American Heart Association, Grant/Award Number: 17SDG33630188; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Grant/Award Number: R56AI146434
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of the study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
REFERENCES
- 1. Minor PD. Live attenuated vaccines: historical successes and current challenges. Virology. 2015;479‐480:379‐392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Chung JR, Flannery B, Thompson MG, et al. Seasonal effectiveness of live attenuated and inactivated influenza vaccine. Pediatrics. 2016;137:e20153279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Poehling KA, Caspard H, Peters TR, et al. 2015‐2016 vaccine effectiveness of live attenuated and inactivated influenza vaccines in children in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:665‐672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Li J, Arevalo MT, Chen Y, Chen S, Zeng M. T‐cell‐mediated cross‐strain protective immunity elicited by prime‐boost vaccination with a live attenuated influenza vaccine. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;27:37‐43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Liu WC, Nachbagauer R, Stadlbauer D, et al. Sequential immunization with live‐attenuated chimeric hemagglutinin‐based vaccines confers heterosubtypic immunity against influenza A viruses in a preclinical Ferret model. Front Immunol. 2019;10:756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Slutter B, Pewe LL, Lauer P, Harty JT. Cutting edge: rapid boosting of cross‐reactive memory CD8 T cells broadens the protective capacity of the Flumist vaccine. J Immunol. 2013;190:3854‐3858. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Smith JH, Brooks P, Johnson S, et al. Aerosol vaccination induces robust protective immunity to homologous and heterologous influenza infection in mice. Vaccine. 2011;29:2568‐2575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Belz GT, Xie W, Altman JD, Doherty PC. A previously unrecognized H‐2D(b)‐restricted peptide prominent in the primary influenza A virus‐specific CD8(+) T‐cell response is much less apparent following secondary challenge. J Virol. 2000;74:3486‐3493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Bennink JR, Yewdell JW, Smith GL, Moss B. Anti‐influenza virus cytotoxic T lymphocytes recognize the three viral polymerases and a nonstructural protein: responsiveness to individual viral antigens is major histocompatibility complex controlled. J Virol. 1987;61:1098‐1102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Scherle PA, Gerhard W. Functional analysis of influenza‐specific helper T cell clones in vivo. T cells specific for internal viral proteins provide cognate help for B cell responses to hemagglutinin. J Exp Med. 1986;164:1114‐1128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Yap KL, Ada GL. The recovery of mice from influenza A virus infection: adoptive transfer of immunity with influenza virus‐specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes recognizing a common virion antigen. Scand J Immunol. 1978;8:413‐420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Dhakal S, Klein SL. Host factors impact vaccine efficacy: implications for seasonal and universal influenza vaccine programs. J Virol. 2019;93:e00797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Chhiba KD, Patel GB, Vu THT, et al. Prevalence and characterization of asthma in hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients with COVID‐19. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146(307–314):e304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Xu Z, Zan H, Pone EJ, Mai T, Casali P. Immunoglobulin class‐switch DNA recombination: induction, targeting and beyond. Nat Rev Immunol. 2012;12:517‐531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Snapper CM, Paul WE. Interferon‐gamma and B cell stimulatory factor‐1 reciprocally regulate Ig isotype production. Science. 1987;236:944‐947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Hocart MJ, Mackenzie JS, Stewart GA. The immunoglobulin G subclass responses of mice to influenza A virus: the effect of mouse strain, and the neutralizing abilities of individual protein A‐purified subclass antibodies. J Gen Virol. 1989;70(Pt 9):2439‐2448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Hocart MJ, Mackenzie JS, Stewart GA. The IgG subclass responses induced by wild‐type, cold‐adapted and purified haemagglutinin from influenza virus A/Queensland/6/72 in CBA/CaH mice. J Gen Virol. 1988;69(Pt 8):1873‐1882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Furuya Y, Roberts S, Hurteau GJ, Sanfilippo AM, Racine R, Metzger DW. Asthma increases susceptibility to heterologous but not homologous secondary influenza. J Virol. 2014;88:9166‐9181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Belshe RB, Ambrose CS, Yi T. Safety and efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine in children 2‐7 years of age. Vaccine. 2008;26(Suppl 4):D10‐D16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Bergen R, Black S, Shinefield H, et al. Safety of cold‐adapted live attenuated influenza vaccine in a large cohort of children and adolescents. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2004;23:138‐144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395:497‐506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Saghazadeh A, Rezaei N. Immune‐epidemiological parameters of the novel coronavirus – a perspective. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020;16:465‐470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of the study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
