Editorial - Archives of Nursing and Care (2022) Volume 5, Issue 9

Senior Skilled Nursing Participants' Biocompatibility to Three Different Influenza Vaccines Against Homologous and Heterologous Strains

Richard J. Webby*

Department of Microbiology and Immunology University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, china

*Corresponding Author:
Richard J. Webby
Department of Microbiology and Immunology University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, china
E-mail: rich@ard.com

Received: 04-Dec-2022, Manuscript No. oanc-22-83798; Editor assigned: 06-Dec-2022, PreQC No. oanc-22-83798 (PQ); Reviewed: 20- Dec-2022, QC No. oanc-22-83798; Revised: 26-Dec-2022, Manuscript No. oanc-22-83798 (R); Published: 31-Dec-2022; DOI: 10.37532/ oanc.2022.5(9).103-104


We looked at how well the MF59 adjuvant in the influenza vaccine protects older people living in institutions from drifting influenza viruses [1]. Hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assays were used to retest sera from a randomised research comparing MF59-adjuvanted (Sub/MF59), virosomal (SVV), and split vaccinations. The GMTs against homologous A/ H3N2 and B and both drifting A strains were considerably higher for Sub/MF59 than split, and corrected postvaccination HI antibody titres were significantly greater with Sub/MF59 than SVV for all strains. For all A influenza strains, Seroprotection rates and mean-fold titer increases were generally higher with Sub/MF59. [2] In comparison to traditional virosomal and split vaccinations, MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccine generated higher and broader immune responses in older patients with chronic illnesses, especially for A/H1 and A/ H3 strains, potentially indicating that delivering therapeutic benefit during antigenic mismatch seasons.


Influenza • Influenza vaccine • Dissent


As people age, [3] infectious diseases like influenza become more common and more severe. Influenza is a highly contagious infectious disease that frequently results in morbidity and mortality in older people ,and the elderly are particularly susceptible to it.[4] Since 95% of all influenza-related deaths in the elderly occur in those with underlying chronic health issues, the elderly have a higher mortality rate than the general population.

Patients with lung or cardiovascular problems, individuals [5] with metabolic diseases, and institutionalised individuals are at a higher risk of developing influenza-related complications. In fact, influenza can make pre-existing conditions worse in the senior population, and it is most likely to blame for the wintertime rise in mortality among people with ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular illness, and diabetes mellitus.

The WHO suggests that immunisation can reduce influenza-related morbidity by 60% and influenza-related mortality by 70%. Annual vaccination is the recommended approach to prevent influenza. However, currently available influenza vaccines have [6] shown limited effectiveness in the elderly, primarily due to the waning immune response typical with advancing age [In fact, lower IgA and IgG antibody responses, delayed peak antibody titers, and a faster decline in titers following vaccination are observed, especially in very old and frail individuals.

The effectiveness of influenza vaccines is also impacted by the influenza virus' ongoing evolution. The influence of antigenic drift on the vaccine's efficacy in protecting against influenza A and B subtypes in the elderly is thought to be very substantial. [7] Since the amount of preexisting immunity to the drifted strain is decreased, antigenic drift has been linked to a more severe and early beginning of influenza epidemic. Seroprotection rates against drifting strains can fall as low as 20% in aged patients, from 70% in years where a good antigenic match is seen.

Resources and Techniques

To test the immunogenicity conferred by MF59- adjuvanted influenza vaccine (Sub/MF59; n = 72), by a virosomal (SVV, n = 39), and by a split (Split; n = 88) vaccines against homologous and heterologous influenza strains, sera from a subset of 199 elderly nursing home [8] residents who had previously participated in a randomised, controlled trial were reanalyzed.

Following receiving informed consent, blood samples (about 10 mL) were taken throughout the clinical research before and 4 weeks after vaccination. Sera were kept at C until HI antibody titres were determined in the lab, as previously described.


Sera from 199 senior study participants who participated in the original study were made accessible, and they were retested for these new immunogenicity studies for the and Split groups. In comparison to Sub/MF59 and SVV, the split group had more healthy patients, according to the original baseline characteristics. The majority of participants in these final two groups had one or more [9] chronic illnesses, such as diabetes mellitus, heart and pulmonary conditions, or cardiac conditions. Each group had more than 80% participants who were 75 or older. The subjects' documented demographic information from the original study is outlined below.


In order to prevent infection and protect the fragile senior population from disease, vaccination is essential. However, during the past ten years, a large number of studies have revealed that elderly people have less effective antibody responses following vaccination than do young adults.Despite the fact that there is an intrinsically variable relationship between specific anti-influenza virus antibody levels and clinical protection and that other factors such as antibodies to neuraminidase [10] and cellular immunity also play a role in protection, antibody titers against hemaglutinin and derived surrogate end-points are currently thought to be the foundation for the licensure of influenza vaccines in the various age groups.


The author would like to acknowledge his Department of Microbiology and Immunology University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, china for their support during this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The author has no known conflicts of interested associated with this paper.


  1. Abdul-Rahaman A, Abdulai, A. Do farmer groups impact on farm yield and efficiency of smallholder farmers? Evidence from rice farmers in northern Ghana. Food Policy. 81: 95-105 (2018).
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  3. Abdul-Rahaman  A. Improved rice variety adoption and farm production efficiency: Accounting for unobservable selection bias and technology gaps among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Technol. Soc. 64:101-471 (2021).
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  5. Aker JC, Ghosh I. The promise (and pitfalls) of ICT for agriculture initiatives. Agric Econ .47: 35-48 (2016).
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  7. Andersson CI, Chege CG. Following up on smallholder farmers and supermarkets in KenyaAm J Agric Econ. 97: 1247-1266 (2015).
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  9. Asfaw S. Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia. Food Policy. 37: 283-295 (2012).
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  11. Alexiadis S. Convergence in agriculture: Evidence from the European regions. Agric Econ Res Rev. 11: 84-96 (2012).
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  13. Bosker M. The spatial evolution of regional GDP disparities in the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Europe. Pap Reg Sci. 88: 3-27 (2009).
  14. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  15. Dagum C. A new approach to the decomposition of the gini income inequality ratio. Empir Econ, 22: 515-531
  16. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  17. Dubey A , Lal R. (2009). Carbon footprint and sustainability of agricultural production systems in Punjab, India and Ohio, USA. J Crop Improv. 23: 332-350
  18. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  19. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Pasurka CA (2007). Environmental production functions and environmental directional. Energy. 32: 1055–1066.
  20. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref