Abstract
Most influenza vaccine studies evaluate acute antibody responses 1 month post-vaccination, leaving long-term immunity poorly understood. Here, we performed a combined analysis of 14 large-scale vaccine studies and conducted two new studies mapping antibody responses in high resolution from their inception out to 1 year post-vaccination. Vaccine antibody responses were classified as weak (<4x fold-change at 1 month and 1 year), transient (≥4x at 1 month, <4x at 1 year), or durable (≥4x at 1 month and 1 year). Surprisingly, >50% of vaccine recipients were weak across seasons, age groups, sexes, pre-vaccination titers, and high or standard vaccine doses. Peak fold-change at 1 month post-vaccination was strongly associated with the long-term response, with most transient responders achieving a maximum fold-change of 4x, while most durable responders reached ≥16x, with both groups maintaining these titers for 2 months (10-75 days post-vaccination). Using the weak, transient, and durable trajectories, a single time point early in the response (days 7-8 or 21) predicted an individual’s response out to 1 year post-vaccination. These results demonstrate that influenza vaccine responses range from little- to-no response to eliciting strong-and-durable immunity, highlighting the stark heterogeneity that is consistently seen across influenza seasons.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH (CTRU, Award #UL1TR002378), Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovations Centers (CIVICs) of NIAID (TMR, Contract #75N93019C00052), University of Georgia (TMR), Cleveland Clinic (TMR), and by the Georgia Research Alliance (TMR, Georgia Eminent Scholar GRA-001).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board of the Mayo Clinic gave ethical approval for this work (2018 Kennedy study). The Western Institutional Review Board and the University of Georgia Review Board gave ethical approval for this work (2022 UGA study).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
To expedite the review process, the raw data and predictions will be attached as a CSV file. Upon publication, all data will be made available on GitHub.
