Potential Consequences of Not Using Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine


      Decreased live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) effectiveness in the U.S. prompted the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in August 2016 to recommend against this vaccine’s use. However, overall influenza uptake increases when LAIV is available and, unlike the U.S., LAIV has retained its effectiveness in other countries. These opposing countercurrents create a dilemma.


      To examine the potential consequences of the decision to not recommend LAIV, which may result in decreased influenza vaccination coverage in the U.S. population, a Markov decision analysis model was used to examine influenza vaccination options in U.S. children aged 2–8 years. Data were compiled and analyzed in 2016.


      Using recently observed low LAIV effectiveness values, fewer influenza cases will occur if LAIV is not used compared with having LAIV as a vaccine option. However, having the option to use LAIV may be favored if LAIV effectiveness returns to prior levels or if the absence of vaccine choice substantially decreases overall vaccine uptake.


      Continued surveillance of LAIV effectiveness and influenza vaccine uptake is warranted, given their importance in influenza vaccination policy decisions.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Flood E.M.
        • Block S.L.
        • Hall M.C.
        • et al.
        Children’s perceptions of influenza illness and preferences for influenza vaccine.
        J Pediatr Health Care. 2011; 25: 171-179
        • Flood E.M.
        • Ryan K.J.
        • Rousculp M.D.
        • et al.
        Parent preferences for pediatric influenza vaccine attributes.
        Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2011; 50: 338-347
        • Shea K.M.
        • Edelsberg J.
        • Weycker D.
        • Farkouh R.A.
        • Strutton D.R.
        • Pelton S.I.
        Rates of pneumococcal disease in adults with chronic medical conditions.
        Open Forum Infect Dis. 2014; 1: 1-9
        • Arnou R.
        • Frank M.
        • Hagel T.
        • Prebet A.
        Willingness to vaccinate or get vaccinated with an intradermal seasonal influenza vaccine: a survey of general practitioners and the general public in France and Germany.
        Adv Ther. 2011; 28: 555-565
        • Reygrobellet C.
        • Viala-Danten M.
        • Meunier J.
        • Weber F.
        • Nguyen V.H.
        Perception and acceptance of intradermal influenza vaccination: patient reported outcomes from Phase 3 clinical trials.
        Hum Vaccin. 2010; 6: 336-345
        • Nowalk M.P.
        • Lin C.J.
        • Toback S.L.
        • et al.
        Improving influenza vaccination rates in the workplace: a randomized trial.
        Am J Prev Med. 2010; 38: 237-246
        • Osterholm M.T.
        • Kelley N.S.
        • Sommer A.
        • Belongia E.A.
        Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Lancet Infect Dis. 2012; 12: 36-44
        • Andersohn F.
        • Bornemann R.
        • Damm O.
        • Martin F.
        • Mittendorf T.
        • Theidel U.
        Vaccination of children with a live-attenuated, intranasal influenza vaccine—analysis and evaluation through a Health Technology Assessment.
        GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014; : 10
      1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Influenza vaccines for healthy children aged 2 through 8 years—review of comparative studies of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV).

        • Jefferson T.
        • Rivetti A.
        • Di Pietrantonj C.
        • Demicheli V.
        • Ferroni E.
        Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 8 (CD004879.
        • Grohskopf L.A.
        • Olsen S.J.
        • Sokolow L.Z.
        • et al.
        Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—United States, 2014-15 influenza season.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014; 63: 691-697
        • Caspard H.
        • Gaglani M.
        • Clipper L.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccine and inactivated influenza vaccine in children 2–17 years of age in 2013–2014 in the United States.
        Vaccine. 2016; 34: 77-82
        • Zimmerman R.K.
        • Nowalk M.P.
        • Chung J.
        • et al.
        2014-2015 influenza vaccine effectiveness in the United States by vaccine type.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 63: 1564-1573
        • Flannery B.
        • Chung J.
        Influenza vaccine effectiveness, including LAIV vs IIV in children and adolescents.
        U.S. FluVE Network. 2015-16;
      2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ACIP votes down use of LAIV for 2016-17 flu season.

        • Public Health England
        Influenza vaccine effectiveness in adults and children in primary care in the UK: provisional end-of-season results. 2015-16;
      3. Ambrose CS. 2015-16 U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Influenza Clinical Investigation for Children (ICICLE) study.

        • Loeb M.
        • Russell M.L.
        • Manning V.
        • et al.
        Live attenuated versus inactivated influenza vaccine in Hutterite children: a cluster randomized blinded trial.
        Ann Intern Med. 2016; 165: 617-624
        • Smith K.J.
        • Raviotta J.M.
        • DePasse J.V.
        • et al.
        Cost effectiveness of influenza vaccine choices in children aged 2-8 years in the U.S..
        Am J Prev Med. 2016; 50: 600-608
      4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Influenza-associated pediatric mortality. Accessed November 19, 2014.

      5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National and regional level outpatient illness and viral surveillance. FluView. Accessed November 19, 2014.

        • Rodgers L.
        • Pabst L.J.
        • Chaves S.S.
        Increasing uptake of live attenuated influenza vaccine among children in the United States, 2008-2014.
        Vaccine. 2015; 33: 22-24
      6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Early Season Flu Vaccination Coverage, United States, November 2015. Flu Vax View. Atlanta, GA: U.S. DHHS.

        • Glezen W.P.
        • Gaglani M.J.
        • Kozinetz C.A.
        • Piedra P.A.
        Direct and indirect effectiveness of influenza vaccination delivered to children at school preceding an epidemic caused by 3 new influenza virus variants.
        J Infect Dis. 2010; 202: 1626-1633
        • Ambrose C.S.
        • Bright H.
        • Mallory R.
        Potential causes of the decreased effectiveness of the influenza A(H1N1)PDM09 strain in live attenuated influenza vaccines.
        Euro Surveill. 2016; 21: pii-30394