User login
Amazon involved with new cancer vaccine clinical trial
The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.
The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.
“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”
In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.
A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.
The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.
The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.
More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.
The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.
“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”
In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.
A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.
The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.
The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.
More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.
The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.
“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”
In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.
A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.
The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.
The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.
More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Some have heavier periods after COVID vaccine
Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.
A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.
The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.
The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.
They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).
“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.
The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.
Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.
Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
No changes found to fertility
The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.
The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.
“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.
However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.
This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.
For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”
Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.
Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.
People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.
People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
Breakthrough bleeding
For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.
Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.
More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.
The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.
The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.
The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.
Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.
Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.
Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.
She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”
The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.
Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.
Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.
“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.
“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”
Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.
Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.
“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.
She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.
“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”
The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.
Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.
A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.
The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.
The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.
They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).
“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.
The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.
Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.
Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
No changes found to fertility
The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.
The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.
“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.
However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.
This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.
For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”
Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.
Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.
People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.
People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
Breakthrough bleeding
For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.
Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.
More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.
The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.
The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.
The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.
Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.
Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.
Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.
She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”
The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.
Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.
Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.
“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.
“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”
Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.
Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.
“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.
She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.
“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”
The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.
Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.
A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.
The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.
The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.
They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).
“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.
The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.
Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.
Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
No changes found to fertility
The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.
The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.
“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.
However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.
This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.
For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”
Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.
Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.
People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.
People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
Breakthrough bleeding
For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.
Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.
More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.
The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.
The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.
The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.
Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.
Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.
Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.
She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”
The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.
Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.
Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.
“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.
“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”
Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.
Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.
“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.
She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.
“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”
The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.
FROM SCIENCE ADVANCES
FDA grants emergency authorization for Novavax COVID vaccine
on July 13.
The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.
The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.
“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”
The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.
Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.
The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
on July 13.
The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.
The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.
“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”
The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.
Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.
The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
on July 13.
The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.
The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.
“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”
The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.
Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.
The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Zoster vaccination does not appear to increase flare risk in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease
, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.
The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.
They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.
Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.
Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.
Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.
“Anytime you are vaccinating a patient with an autoimmune disease, especially one on a biologic, you always worry about the risk of flares,” said Dr. Bose. “Any time you tamper with the immune system, there is a risk of flares.”
The study serves as a clarification for the primary care setting, said Dr. Bose. “A lot of the time, the shingles vaccine is administered not by rheumatology but by primary care or through the pharmacy,” she said. “This study puts them [primary care physicians] at ease.”
Findings from the study reflect that most RZV vaccinations were administered in pharmacies.
One of the weaknesses of the study is that the investigators did not include patients younger than 50 years old, said Dr. Bose. “It would have been nice if they could have looked at younger patients,” she said. “We try to vaccinate all our [immunocompromised] adult patients, even the younger ones, because they are also at risk for shingles.”
Given that there are increasing options of medical therapies in rheumatology that are immunomodulatory, the subject of vaccination for patients is often one of discussion, added Dr. Bose.
Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine, University of California San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, Calif., and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the UCSD Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, told this news organization that a strength of the study is its large numbers of patients but noted the shortcoming of using claims data. “Claims data has inherent limitations, such as the lack of detailed granular data on the patients,” wrote Dr. Kavanaugh, who was not involved with the study. He described this investigation as “really about the first evidence that I am aware of addressing this issue.”
No funding source was listed. One author disclosed having received research grants and consulting fees received from Pfizer and GSK for unrelated work; the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Bose and Dr. Kavanaugh had no relevant disclosures.
, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.
The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.
They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.
Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.
Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.
Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.
“Anytime you are vaccinating a patient with an autoimmune disease, especially one on a biologic, you always worry about the risk of flares,” said Dr. Bose. “Any time you tamper with the immune system, there is a risk of flares.”
The study serves as a clarification for the primary care setting, said Dr. Bose. “A lot of the time, the shingles vaccine is administered not by rheumatology but by primary care or through the pharmacy,” she said. “This study puts them [primary care physicians] at ease.”
Findings from the study reflect that most RZV vaccinations were administered in pharmacies.
One of the weaknesses of the study is that the investigators did not include patients younger than 50 years old, said Dr. Bose. “It would have been nice if they could have looked at younger patients,” she said. “We try to vaccinate all our [immunocompromised] adult patients, even the younger ones, because they are also at risk for shingles.”
Given that there are increasing options of medical therapies in rheumatology that are immunomodulatory, the subject of vaccination for patients is often one of discussion, added Dr. Bose.
Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine, University of California San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, Calif., and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the UCSD Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, told this news organization that a strength of the study is its large numbers of patients but noted the shortcoming of using claims data. “Claims data has inherent limitations, such as the lack of detailed granular data on the patients,” wrote Dr. Kavanaugh, who was not involved with the study. He described this investigation as “really about the first evidence that I am aware of addressing this issue.”
No funding source was listed. One author disclosed having received research grants and consulting fees received from Pfizer and GSK for unrelated work; the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Bose and Dr. Kavanaugh had no relevant disclosures.
, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.
The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.
They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.
Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.
Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.
Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.
“Anytime you are vaccinating a patient with an autoimmune disease, especially one on a biologic, you always worry about the risk of flares,” said Dr. Bose. “Any time you tamper with the immune system, there is a risk of flares.”
The study serves as a clarification for the primary care setting, said Dr. Bose. “A lot of the time, the shingles vaccine is administered not by rheumatology but by primary care or through the pharmacy,” she said. “This study puts them [primary care physicians] at ease.”
Findings from the study reflect that most RZV vaccinations were administered in pharmacies.
One of the weaknesses of the study is that the investigators did not include patients younger than 50 years old, said Dr. Bose. “It would have been nice if they could have looked at younger patients,” she said. “We try to vaccinate all our [immunocompromised] adult patients, even the younger ones, because they are also at risk for shingles.”
Given that there are increasing options of medical therapies in rheumatology that are immunomodulatory, the subject of vaccination for patients is often one of discussion, added Dr. Bose.
Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine, University of California San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, Calif., and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the UCSD Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, told this news organization that a strength of the study is its large numbers of patients but noted the shortcoming of using claims data. “Claims data has inherent limitations, such as the lack of detailed granular data on the patients,” wrote Dr. Kavanaugh, who was not involved with the study. He described this investigation as “really about the first evidence that I am aware of addressing this issue.”
No funding source was listed. One author disclosed having received research grants and consulting fees received from Pfizer and GSK for unrelated work; the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Bose and Dr. Kavanaugh had no relevant disclosures.
To vaccinate 6-month- to 5-year-olds against SARS-CoV-2 or not to vaccinate
A family’s decision to vaccinate their child is best made jointly with a trusted medical provider who knows the child and family. The American Academy of Pediatrics created a toolkit with resources for answering questions about the recently authorized SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) for 6-month- to 5-year-olds with science-backed vaccine facts, including links to other useful AAP information websites, talking points, graphics, and videos.1
SARS-CoV-2 seasonality
SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic, not a once-a-year seasonal virus. Seasons (aka surges) will occur whenever a new variant arises (twice yearly since 2020, Omicron BA.4/BA.5 currently), or when enough vaccine holdouts, newborns, and/or those with waning of prior immunity (vaccine or infection induced) accrue.
Emergency use authorization submission data for mRNA vaccine responses in young children2,3
Moderna in 6-month- through 5-year-olds. Two 25-mcg doses given 4-8 weeks apart produced 37.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.9%-51.1%) protection against symptomatic Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infections through 3 months of follow-up. Immunobridging analysis of antibody responses compared to 18- to 25-year-olds (100-mcg doses) showed the children’s responses were noninferior. Thus, the committee inferred that vaccine effectiveness in children should be similar to that in 18- to 25-year-olds. Fever, irritability, or local reaction/pain occurred in two-thirds after the second dose. Grade 3 reactions were noted in less than 5%.
Pfizer in 6-month- through 4-year-olds. Three 3-mcg doses, two doses 3-8 weeks apart and the third dose at least 8 weeks later (median 16 weeks), produced 80.3% (95% CI, 13.9%-96.7%) protection against symptomatic COVID-19 during the 6 weeks after the third dose. Local and systemic reactions occurred in 63.8%; less than 5% had grade 3 reactions (fever in about 3%, irritability in 1.3%, fatigue in 0.8%) mostly after second dose.
Neither duration of follow-up is very long. The Moderna data tell me that a third primary dose would have been better but restarting the trial to evaluate third doses would have delayed Moderna’s EUA another 4-6 months. The three-dose Pfizer data look better but may not have been as good with another 6 weeks of follow-up.
Additional post-EUA data will be collected. Boosters will be needed when immunity from both vaccines wanes (one estimate is about 6 months after the primary series). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices noted in their deliberations that vaccine-induced antibody responses are higher and cross-neutralize variants (even Omicron) better than infection-induced immunity.4
Are there downsides to the vaccines? Naysayers question vaccinating children less than 5 years old with reasons containing enough “truth” that they catch people’s attention, for example, “young children don’t get very sick with COVID-19,” “most have been infected already,” “RNA for the spike protein stays in the body for months,” or “myocarditis.” Naysayers can quote references in reputable journals but seem to spin selected data out of context or quote unconfirmed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Reasons to vaccinate
- While children have milder disease than adults, mid-June 2022 surveillance indicated 50 hospitalizations and 1 pediatric death each day from SARS-CoV-2.5
- Vaccinating young children endows a foundation of vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity that is superior to infection-induced immunity.4
- Long-term effects of large numbers of SARS-CoV-2 particles that enter every organ of a developing child have not been determined.
- Viral loads are lowered by prior vaccine; fewer viral replications lessen chances for newer variants to arise.
- Transmission is less in breakthrough infections than infections in the unvaccinated.
- Thirty percent of 5- to 11-year-olds hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 had no underlying conditions;6 hospitalization rates in newborn to 4-year-olds have been the highest in the Omicron surge.7
- No myocarditis or pericarditis episodes have been detected in 6-month- to 11-year-old trials.
- The AAP and ACIP recommend the mRNA vaccines.
My thoughts are that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is just another “routine” childhood vaccine that prepares children for healthier futures, pandemic or not, and the vaccines are as safe as other routine vaccines.
And like other pediatric vaccines, it should be no surprise that boosters will be needed, even if no newer variants than Omicron BA.4/BA.5 arise. But we know newer variants will arise and, similar to influenza vaccine, new formulations, perhaps with multiple SARS-CoV-2 strain antigens, will be needed every year or so. Everyone will get SARS-CoV-2 multiple times in their lives no matter how careful they are. So isn’t it good medical practice to establish early the best available foundation for maintaining lifelong SARS-CoV-2 immunity?
To me it is like pertussis. Most pertussis-infected children are sick enough to be hospitalized; very few die. They are miserable with illnesses that take weeks to months to subside. The worst disease usually occurs in unvaccinated young children or those with underlying conditions. Reactogenicity was reduced with acellular vaccine but resulted in less immunogenicity, so we give boosters at intervals that best match waning immunity. Circulating strains can be different than the vaccine strain, so protection against infection is 80%. Finally, even the safest vaccine may very rarely have sequelae. That is why The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. Yet the benefit-to-harm ratio for children and society favors universal pertussis vaccine use. And we vaccinate even those who have had pertussis because even infection-based immunity is incomplete and protection wanes. If arguments similar to those by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine naysayers were applied to acellular pertussis vaccine, it seems they would argue against pertussis vaccine for young children.
Another major issue has been “safety concerns” about the vaccines’ small amount of mRNA for the spike protein encased in microscopic lipid bubbles injected in the arm or leg. This mRNA is picked up by human cells, and in the cytoplasm (not the nucleus where our DNA resides) produces a limited supply of spike protein that is then picked up by antigen-presenting cells for short-lived distribution (days to 2 weeks at most) to regional lymph nodes where immune-memory processes are jump-started. Contrast that to even asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection where multibillions of virus particles are produced for up to 14 days with access to every bodily organ that contains ACE-2 receptors (they all do). Each virus particle hijacks a human cell producing thousands of mRNA for spike protein (and multiple other SARS-CoV-2 proteins), eventually releasing multibillions of lipid fragments from the ruptured cell. Comparing the amount of these components in the mRNA vaccines to those from infection is like comparing a campfire to the many-thousand-acre wildfire. So, if one is worried about the effects of spike protein and lipid fragments, the limited localized amounts in mRNA vaccines should make one much less concerned than the enormous amounts circulating throughout the body as a result of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
My take is that children 6-months to 5-years-old deserve SARS-CoV-2–induced vaccine protection and we can and should strongly recommend it as medical providers and child advocates.
*Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section, Kansas City. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. AAP. 2022 Jun 21. As COVID-19 vaccines become available for children ages 6 months to 4 years, AAP urges families to reach out to pediatricians to ask questions and access vaccine. www.aap.org.
2. CDC. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE): Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months–5 years. www.cdc.gov.
3. CDC. ACIP evidence to recommendations for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–5 years and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–4 years under an emergency use authorization. www.cdc.gov.
4. Tang J et al. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2979.
5. Children and COVID-19: State Data Report. 2022 Jun 30. www.aap.org.
6. Shi DS et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:574-81.
7. Marks KJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:429-36.
Other good resources for families are https://getvaccineanswers.org/ or www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405.
*This story was updated on July 19, 2022.
A family’s decision to vaccinate their child is best made jointly with a trusted medical provider who knows the child and family. The American Academy of Pediatrics created a toolkit with resources for answering questions about the recently authorized SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) for 6-month- to 5-year-olds with science-backed vaccine facts, including links to other useful AAP information websites, talking points, graphics, and videos.1
SARS-CoV-2 seasonality
SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic, not a once-a-year seasonal virus. Seasons (aka surges) will occur whenever a new variant arises (twice yearly since 2020, Omicron BA.4/BA.5 currently), or when enough vaccine holdouts, newborns, and/or those with waning of prior immunity (vaccine or infection induced) accrue.
Emergency use authorization submission data for mRNA vaccine responses in young children2,3
Moderna in 6-month- through 5-year-olds. Two 25-mcg doses given 4-8 weeks apart produced 37.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.9%-51.1%) protection against symptomatic Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infections through 3 months of follow-up. Immunobridging analysis of antibody responses compared to 18- to 25-year-olds (100-mcg doses) showed the children’s responses were noninferior. Thus, the committee inferred that vaccine effectiveness in children should be similar to that in 18- to 25-year-olds. Fever, irritability, or local reaction/pain occurred in two-thirds after the second dose. Grade 3 reactions were noted in less than 5%.
Pfizer in 6-month- through 4-year-olds. Three 3-mcg doses, two doses 3-8 weeks apart and the third dose at least 8 weeks later (median 16 weeks), produced 80.3% (95% CI, 13.9%-96.7%) protection against symptomatic COVID-19 during the 6 weeks after the third dose. Local and systemic reactions occurred in 63.8%; less than 5% had grade 3 reactions (fever in about 3%, irritability in 1.3%, fatigue in 0.8%) mostly after second dose.
Neither duration of follow-up is very long. The Moderna data tell me that a third primary dose would have been better but restarting the trial to evaluate third doses would have delayed Moderna’s EUA another 4-6 months. The three-dose Pfizer data look better but may not have been as good with another 6 weeks of follow-up.
Additional post-EUA data will be collected. Boosters will be needed when immunity from both vaccines wanes (one estimate is about 6 months after the primary series). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices noted in their deliberations that vaccine-induced antibody responses are higher and cross-neutralize variants (even Omicron) better than infection-induced immunity.4
Are there downsides to the vaccines? Naysayers question vaccinating children less than 5 years old with reasons containing enough “truth” that they catch people’s attention, for example, “young children don’t get very sick with COVID-19,” “most have been infected already,” “RNA for the spike protein stays in the body for months,” or “myocarditis.” Naysayers can quote references in reputable journals but seem to spin selected data out of context or quote unconfirmed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Reasons to vaccinate
- While children have milder disease than adults, mid-June 2022 surveillance indicated 50 hospitalizations and 1 pediatric death each day from SARS-CoV-2.5
- Vaccinating young children endows a foundation of vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity that is superior to infection-induced immunity.4
- Long-term effects of large numbers of SARS-CoV-2 particles that enter every organ of a developing child have not been determined.
- Viral loads are lowered by prior vaccine; fewer viral replications lessen chances for newer variants to arise.
- Transmission is less in breakthrough infections than infections in the unvaccinated.
- Thirty percent of 5- to 11-year-olds hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 had no underlying conditions;6 hospitalization rates in newborn to 4-year-olds have been the highest in the Omicron surge.7
- No myocarditis or pericarditis episodes have been detected in 6-month- to 11-year-old trials.
- The AAP and ACIP recommend the mRNA vaccines.
My thoughts are that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is just another “routine” childhood vaccine that prepares children for healthier futures, pandemic or not, and the vaccines are as safe as other routine vaccines.
And like other pediatric vaccines, it should be no surprise that boosters will be needed, even if no newer variants than Omicron BA.4/BA.5 arise. But we know newer variants will arise and, similar to influenza vaccine, new formulations, perhaps with multiple SARS-CoV-2 strain antigens, will be needed every year or so. Everyone will get SARS-CoV-2 multiple times in their lives no matter how careful they are. So isn’t it good medical practice to establish early the best available foundation for maintaining lifelong SARS-CoV-2 immunity?
To me it is like pertussis. Most pertussis-infected children are sick enough to be hospitalized; very few die. They are miserable with illnesses that take weeks to months to subside. The worst disease usually occurs in unvaccinated young children or those with underlying conditions. Reactogenicity was reduced with acellular vaccine but resulted in less immunogenicity, so we give boosters at intervals that best match waning immunity. Circulating strains can be different than the vaccine strain, so protection against infection is 80%. Finally, even the safest vaccine may very rarely have sequelae. That is why The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. Yet the benefit-to-harm ratio for children and society favors universal pertussis vaccine use. And we vaccinate even those who have had pertussis because even infection-based immunity is incomplete and protection wanes. If arguments similar to those by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine naysayers were applied to acellular pertussis vaccine, it seems they would argue against pertussis vaccine for young children.
Another major issue has been “safety concerns” about the vaccines’ small amount of mRNA for the spike protein encased in microscopic lipid bubbles injected in the arm or leg. This mRNA is picked up by human cells, and in the cytoplasm (not the nucleus where our DNA resides) produces a limited supply of spike protein that is then picked up by antigen-presenting cells for short-lived distribution (days to 2 weeks at most) to regional lymph nodes where immune-memory processes are jump-started. Contrast that to even asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection where multibillions of virus particles are produced for up to 14 days with access to every bodily organ that contains ACE-2 receptors (they all do). Each virus particle hijacks a human cell producing thousands of mRNA for spike protein (and multiple other SARS-CoV-2 proteins), eventually releasing multibillions of lipid fragments from the ruptured cell. Comparing the amount of these components in the mRNA vaccines to those from infection is like comparing a campfire to the many-thousand-acre wildfire. So, if one is worried about the effects of spike protein and lipid fragments, the limited localized amounts in mRNA vaccines should make one much less concerned than the enormous amounts circulating throughout the body as a result of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
My take is that children 6-months to 5-years-old deserve SARS-CoV-2–induced vaccine protection and we can and should strongly recommend it as medical providers and child advocates.
*Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section, Kansas City. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. AAP. 2022 Jun 21. As COVID-19 vaccines become available for children ages 6 months to 4 years, AAP urges families to reach out to pediatricians to ask questions and access vaccine. www.aap.org.
2. CDC. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE): Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months–5 years. www.cdc.gov.
3. CDC. ACIP evidence to recommendations for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–5 years and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–4 years under an emergency use authorization. www.cdc.gov.
4. Tang J et al. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2979.
5. Children and COVID-19: State Data Report. 2022 Jun 30. www.aap.org.
6. Shi DS et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:574-81.
7. Marks KJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:429-36.
Other good resources for families are https://getvaccineanswers.org/ or www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405.
*This story was updated on July 19, 2022.
A family’s decision to vaccinate their child is best made jointly with a trusted medical provider who knows the child and family. The American Academy of Pediatrics created a toolkit with resources for answering questions about the recently authorized SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) for 6-month- to 5-year-olds with science-backed vaccine facts, including links to other useful AAP information websites, talking points, graphics, and videos.1
SARS-CoV-2 seasonality
SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic, not a once-a-year seasonal virus. Seasons (aka surges) will occur whenever a new variant arises (twice yearly since 2020, Omicron BA.4/BA.5 currently), or when enough vaccine holdouts, newborns, and/or those with waning of prior immunity (vaccine or infection induced) accrue.
Emergency use authorization submission data for mRNA vaccine responses in young children2,3
Moderna in 6-month- through 5-year-olds. Two 25-mcg doses given 4-8 weeks apart produced 37.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.9%-51.1%) protection against symptomatic Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infections through 3 months of follow-up. Immunobridging analysis of antibody responses compared to 18- to 25-year-olds (100-mcg doses) showed the children’s responses were noninferior. Thus, the committee inferred that vaccine effectiveness in children should be similar to that in 18- to 25-year-olds. Fever, irritability, or local reaction/pain occurred in two-thirds after the second dose. Grade 3 reactions were noted in less than 5%.
Pfizer in 6-month- through 4-year-olds. Three 3-mcg doses, two doses 3-8 weeks apart and the third dose at least 8 weeks later (median 16 weeks), produced 80.3% (95% CI, 13.9%-96.7%) protection against symptomatic COVID-19 during the 6 weeks after the third dose. Local and systemic reactions occurred in 63.8%; less than 5% had grade 3 reactions (fever in about 3%, irritability in 1.3%, fatigue in 0.8%) mostly after second dose.
Neither duration of follow-up is very long. The Moderna data tell me that a third primary dose would have been better but restarting the trial to evaluate third doses would have delayed Moderna’s EUA another 4-6 months. The three-dose Pfizer data look better but may not have been as good with another 6 weeks of follow-up.
Additional post-EUA data will be collected. Boosters will be needed when immunity from both vaccines wanes (one estimate is about 6 months after the primary series). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices noted in their deliberations that vaccine-induced antibody responses are higher and cross-neutralize variants (even Omicron) better than infection-induced immunity.4
Are there downsides to the vaccines? Naysayers question vaccinating children less than 5 years old with reasons containing enough “truth” that they catch people’s attention, for example, “young children don’t get very sick with COVID-19,” “most have been infected already,” “RNA for the spike protein stays in the body for months,” or “myocarditis.” Naysayers can quote references in reputable journals but seem to spin selected data out of context or quote unconfirmed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Reasons to vaccinate
- While children have milder disease than adults, mid-June 2022 surveillance indicated 50 hospitalizations and 1 pediatric death each day from SARS-CoV-2.5
- Vaccinating young children endows a foundation of vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity that is superior to infection-induced immunity.4
- Long-term effects of large numbers of SARS-CoV-2 particles that enter every organ of a developing child have not been determined.
- Viral loads are lowered by prior vaccine; fewer viral replications lessen chances for newer variants to arise.
- Transmission is less in breakthrough infections than infections in the unvaccinated.
- Thirty percent of 5- to 11-year-olds hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 had no underlying conditions;6 hospitalization rates in newborn to 4-year-olds have been the highest in the Omicron surge.7
- No myocarditis or pericarditis episodes have been detected in 6-month- to 11-year-old trials.
- The AAP and ACIP recommend the mRNA vaccines.
My thoughts are that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is just another “routine” childhood vaccine that prepares children for healthier futures, pandemic or not, and the vaccines are as safe as other routine vaccines.
And like other pediatric vaccines, it should be no surprise that boosters will be needed, even if no newer variants than Omicron BA.4/BA.5 arise. But we know newer variants will arise and, similar to influenza vaccine, new formulations, perhaps with multiple SARS-CoV-2 strain antigens, will be needed every year or so. Everyone will get SARS-CoV-2 multiple times in their lives no matter how careful they are. So isn’t it good medical practice to establish early the best available foundation for maintaining lifelong SARS-CoV-2 immunity?
To me it is like pertussis. Most pertussis-infected children are sick enough to be hospitalized; very few die. They are miserable with illnesses that take weeks to months to subside. The worst disease usually occurs in unvaccinated young children or those with underlying conditions. Reactogenicity was reduced with acellular vaccine but resulted in less immunogenicity, so we give boosters at intervals that best match waning immunity. Circulating strains can be different than the vaccine strain, so protection against infection is 80%. Finally, even the safest vaccine may very rarely have sequelae. That is why The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. Yet the benefit-to-harm ratio for children and society favors universal pertussis vaccine use. And we vaccinate even those who have had pertussis because even infection-based immunity is incomplete and protection wanes. If arguments similar to those by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine naysayers were applied to acellular pertussis vaccine, it seems they would argue against pertussis vaccine for young children.
Another major issue has been “safety concerns” about the vaccines’ small amount of mRNA for the spike protein encased in microscopic lipid bubbles injected in the arm or leg. This mRNA is picked up by human cells, and in the cytoplasm (not the nucleus where our DNA resides) produces a limited supply of spike protein that is then picked up by antigen-presenting cells for short-lived distribution (days to 2 weeks at most) to regional lymph nodes where immune-memory processes are jump-started. Contrast that to even asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection where multibillions of virus particles are produced for up to 14 days with access to every bodily organ that contains ACE-2 receptors (they all do). Each virus particle hijacks a human cell producing thousands of mRNA for spike protein (and multiple other SARS-CoV-2 proteins), eventually releasing multibillions of lipid fragments from the ruptured cell. Comparing the amount of these components in the mRNA vaccines to those from infection is like comparing a campfire to the many-thousand-acre wildfire. So, if one is worried about the effects of spike protein and lipid fragments, the limited localized amounts in mRNA vaccines should make one much less concerned than the enormous amounts circulating throughout the body as a result of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
My take is that children 6-months to 5-years-old deserve SARS-CoV-2–induced vaccine protection and we can and should strongly recommend it as medical providers and child advocates.
*Dr. Harrison is professor, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Medicine, department of medicine, infectious diseases section, Kansas City. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. AAP. 2022 Jun 21. As COVID-19 vaccines become available for children ages 6 months to 4 years, AAP urges families to reach out to pediatricians to ask questions and access vaccine. www.aap.org.
2. CDC. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE): Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months–5 years. www.cdc.gov.
3. CDC. ACIP evidence to recommendations for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–5 years and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 6 months–4 years under an emergency use authorization. www.cdc.gov.
4. Tang J et al. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2979.
5. Children and COVID-19: State Data Report. 2022 Jun 30. www.aap.org.
6. Shi DS et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:574-81.
7. Marks KJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:429-36.
Other good resources for families are https://getvaccineanswers.org/ or www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405.
*This story was updated on July 19, 2022.
CDC recommends high-dose flu vaccines for seniors
In an online statement Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.
The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.
But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.
These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.
The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.
The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.
In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.
At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In an online statement Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.
The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.
But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.
These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.
The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.
The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.
In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.
At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In an online statement Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.
The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.
But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.
These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.
The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.
The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.
In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.
At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is a single dose of HPV vaccine enough?
In an April press release, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the findings of their review concerning the efficacy of various dose schedules for human papillomavirus (HPV). “A single-dose HPV vaccine delivers solid protection against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, that is comparable to 2-dose schedules,” according to SAGE.
This statement comes on the heels of an article published in the November 2021 issue of Lancet Oncology about a study in India. It found that a single dose of the vaccine provides protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and 18 similar to that provided by two or three doses.
Will this new information lead French authorities to change their recommendations? What do French specialists think? At the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases (SFCPCV), Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, shared his thoughts.
With respect to the Indian study, Dr. Canlorbe pointed out that while its findings would need “to be confirmed by other studies,” they were, nonetheless,
India and France
During the congress press conference, he went on to say that, at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. This is because the country’s situation is different. HPV vaccination coverage is low; estimates put it at 23.7%, placing the country 28th out of 31 in Europe.
“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
In addition, he drew attention to several limitations of the Indian study. Initially, the team had planned to enroll 20,000 participants. In the end, there were around 17,000, and these were allocated to three cohorts: single-dose, two-dose, and three-dose. Furthermore, the primary objective, which had initially been focused on precancerous and cancerous lesions, was revised. The new aim was to compare vaccine efficacy of single dose to that of three and two doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination. In about 90% of cases, the HPV infection went away spontaneously in 2 years without inducing lesions. Finally, the participants were women in India; therefore, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to the French population.
“This information has to be confirmed. However, as far as I know, there are no new studies going on at the moment. The Indian study, on the other hand, is still in progress,” said Dr. Canlorbe.
“In France, I think that for the time being we should stick to the studies that are currently available, which have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of two or three doses,” he concluded. In support of this approach, he cited a study on the effects of the national HPV vaccination program in England; there, the vaccination coverage is 80%.
This program was associated with a 95% risk reduction for precancerous lesions and an 87% reduction in the number of cancers, confirming the good results already achieved by Sweden and Australia.
In his comments on the WHO’s stance (which differs from that of the French experts), Jean-Luc Mergui, MD, gynecologist in the department of colposcopy and hysteroscopy at Pitié-Salpêtrière, and former president of the SFCPCV, offered an eloquent comparison: “The WHO also recommends 6 months of breastfeeding as a method of contraception, but this isn’t what’s recommended in France, for the risk of getting pregnant nevertheless remains.”
Indian study highlights
Partha Basu, MD, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, and colleagues compared vaccine efficacy of a single dose of Gardasil (HPV 9-valent vaccine, recombinant) to that of two and three doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and HPV 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination.
According to the protocol, the plan was to recruit 20,000 unmarried girls, aged 10-18 years, from across India. Recruitment was initiated in September 2009. However, in response to seven unexplained deaths reported in another ongoing HPV vaccination demonstration program in the country, the Indian government issued a notification in April 2010 to stop further recruitment and HPV vaccination in all clinical trials. At this point, Dr. Basu and his team had recruited 17,729 eligible girls.
After suspension of recruitment and vaccination, their randomized trial was converted to a longitudinal, prospective, cohort study by default.
Vaccinated participants were followed up over a median duration of 9 years. In all, 4,348 participants had three doses, 4,980 had two doses (at 0 and 6 months), and 4,949 had a single dose. Cervical specimens were collected from participants 18 months after marriage or 6 months after first childbirth, whichever was earlier, to assess incident and persistent HPV infections. Participants were invited to an annual cervical cancer screening once they reached age 25 years and were married.
A single dose of HPV vaccine provides similar protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and HPV 18, the genotypes responsible for nearly 70% of cervical cancers, compared with that provided by two or three doses. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.0-99.9) in the single-dose default cohort (2,135 women assessed), 93.1% (95% CI, 77.3-99.8) in the two-dose cohort (1,452 women assessed), and 93.3% (95% CI, 77.5-99.7) in three-dose recipients (1,460 women assessed).
Dr. Canlorbe reported no relevant financial relationships regarding the content of this article.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. An English version appeared on Medscape.com.
In an April press release, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the findings of their review concerning the efficacy of various dose schedules for human papillomavirus (HPV). “A single-dose HPV vaccine delivers solid protection against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, that is comparable to 2-dose schedules,” according to SAGE.
This statement comes on the heels of an article published in the November 2021 issue of Lancet Oncology about a study in India. It found that a single dose of the vaccine provides protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and 18 similar to that provided by two or three doses.
Will this new information lead French authorities to change their recommendations? What do French specialists think? At the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases (SFCPCV), Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, shared his thoughts.
With respect to the Indian study, Dr. Canlorbe pointed out that while its findings would need “to be confirmed by other studies,” they were, nonetheless,
India and France
During the congress press conference, he went on to say that, at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. This is because the country’s situation is different. HPV vaccination coverage is low; estimates put it at 23.7%, placing the country 28th out of 31 in Europe.
“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
In addition, he drew attention to several limitations of the Indian study. Initially, the team had planned to enroll 20,000 participants. In the end, there were around 17,000, and these were allocated to three cohorts: single-dose, two-dose, and three-dose. Furthermore, the primary objective, which had initially been focused on precancerous and cancerous lesions, was revised. The new aim was to compare vaccine efficacy of single dose to that of three and two doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination. In about 90% of cases, the HPV infection went away spontaneously in 2 years without inducing lesions. Finally, the participants were women in India; therefore, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to the French population.
“This information has to be confirmed. However, as far as I know, there are no new studies going on at the moment. The Indian study, on the other hand, is still in progress,” said Dr. Canlorbe.
“In France, I think that for the time being we should stick to the studies that are currently available, which have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of two or three doses,” he concluded. In support of this approach, he cited a study on the effects of the national HPV vaccination program in England; there, the vaccination coverage is 80%.
This program was associated with a 95% risk reduction for precancerous lesions and an 87% reduction in the number of cancers, confirming the good results already achieved by Sweden and Australia.
In his comments on the WHO’s stance (which differs from that of the French experts), Jean-Luc Mergui, MD, gynecologist in the department of colposcopy and hysteroscopy at Pitié-Salpêtrière, and former president of the SFCPCV, offered an eloquent comparison: “The WHO also recommends 6 months of breastfeeding as a method of contraception, but this isn’t what’s recommended in France, for the risk of getting pregnant nevertheless remains.”
Indian study highlights
Partha Basu, MD, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, and colleagues compared vaccine efficacy of a single dose of Gardasil (HPV 9-valent vaccine, recombinant) to that of two and three doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and HPV 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination.
According to the protocol, the plan was to recruit 20,000 unmarried girls, aged 10-18 years, from across India. Recruitment was initiated in September 2009. However, in response to seven unexplained deaths reported in another ongoing HPV vaccination demonstration program in the country, the Indian government issued a notification in April 2010 to stop further recruitment and HPV vaccination in all clinical trials. At this point, Dr. Basu and his team had recruited 17,729 eligible girls.
After suspension of recruitment and vaccination, their randomized trial was converted to a longitudinal, prospective, cohort study by default.
Vaccinated participants were followed up over a median duration of 9 years. In all, 4,348 participants had three doses, 4,980 had two doses (at 0 and 6 months), and 4,949 had a single dose. Cervical specimens were collected from participants 18 months after marriage or 6 months after first childbirth, whichever was earlier, to assess incident and persistent HPV infections. Participants were invited to an annual cervical cancer screening once they reached age 25 years and were married.
A single dose of HPV vaccine provides similar protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and HPV 18, the genotypes responsible for nearly 70% of cervical cancers, compared with that provided by two or three doses. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.0-99.9) in the single-dose default cohort (2,135 women assessed), 93.1% (95% CI, 77.3-99.8) in the two-dose cohort (1,452 women assessed), and 93.3% (95% CI, 77.5-99.7) in three-dose recipients (1,460 women assessed).
Dr. Canlorbe reported no relevant financial relationships regarding the content of this article.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. An English version appeared on Medscape.com.
In an April press release, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the findings of their review concerning the efficacy of various dose schedules for human papillomavirus (HPV). “A single-dose HPV vaccine delivers solid protection against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, that is comparable to 2-dose schedules,” according to SAGE.
This statement comes on the heels of an article published in the November 2021 issue of Lancet Oncology about a study in India. It found that a single dose of the vaccine provides protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and 18 similar to that provided by two or three doses.
Will this new information lead French authorities to change their recommendations? What do French specialists think? At the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases (SFCPCV), Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, shared his thoughts.
With respect to the Indian study, Dr. Canlorbe pointed out that while its findings would need “to be confirmed by other studies,” they were, nonetheless,
India and France
During the congress press conference, he went on to say that, at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. This is because the country’s situation is different. HPV vaccination coverage is low; estimates put it at 23.7%, placing the country 28th out of 31 in Europe.
“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
In addition, he drew attention to several limitations of the Indian study. Initially, the team had planned to enroll 20,000 participants. In the end, there were around 17,000, and these were allocated to three cohorts: single-dose, two-dose, and three-dose. Furthermore, the primary objective, which had initially been focused on precancerous and cancerous lesions, was revised. The new aim was to compare vaccine efficacy of single dose to that of three and two doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination. In about 90% of cases, the HPV infection went away spontaneously in 2 years without inducing lesions. Finally, the participants were women in India; therefore, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to the French population.
“This information has to be confirmed. However, as far as I know, there are no new studies going on at the moment. The Indian study, on the other hand, is still in progress,” said Dr. Canlorbe.
“In France, I think that for the time being we should stick to the studies that are currently available, which have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of two or three doses,” he concluded. In support of this approach, he cited a study on the effects of the national HPV vaccination program in England; there, the vaccination coverage is 80%.
This program was associated with a 95% risk reduction for precancerous lesions and an 87% reduction in the number of cancers, confirming the good results already achieved by Sweden and Australia.
In his comments on the WHO’s stance (which differs from that of the French experts), Jean-Luc Mergui, MD, gynecologist in the department of colposcopy and hysteroscopy at Pitié-Salpêtrière, and former president of the SFCPCV, offered an eloquent comparison: “The WHO also recommends 6 months of breastfeeding as a method of contraception, but this isn’t what’s recommended in France, for the risk of getting pregnant nevertheless remains.”
Indian study highlights
Partha Basu, MD, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, and colleagues compared vaccine efficacy of a single dose of Gardasil (HPV 9-valent vaccine, recombinant) to that of two and three doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and HPV 18 infection at 10 years postvaccination.
According to the protocol, the plan was to recruit 20,000 unmarried girls, aged 10-18 years, from across India. Recruitment was initiated in September 2009. However, in response to seven unexplained deaths reported in another ongoing HPV vaccination demonstration program in the country, the Indian government issued a notification in April 2010 to stop further recruitment and HPV vaccination in all clinical trials. At this point, Dr. Basu and his team had recruited 17,729 eligible girls.
After suspension of recruitment and vaccination, their randomized trial was converted to a longitudinal, prospective, cohort study by default.
Vaccinated participants were followed up over a median duration of 9 years. In all, 4,348 participants had three doses, 4,980 had two doses (at 0 and 6 months), and 4,949 had a single dose. Cervical specimens were collected from participants 18 months after marriage or 6 months after first childbirth, whichever was earlier, to assess incident and persistent HPV infections. Participants were invited to an annual cervical cancer screening once they reached age 25 years and were married.
A single dose of HPV vaccine provides similar protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and HPV 18, the genotypes responsible for nearly 70% of cervical cancers, compared with that provided by two or three doses. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.0-99.9) in the single-dose default cohort (2,135 women assessed), 93.1% (95% CI, 77.3-99.8) in the two-dose cohort (1,452 women assessed), and 93.3% (95% CI, 77.5-99.7) in three-dose recipients (1,460 women assessed).
Dr. Canlorbe reported no relevant financial relationships regarding the content of this article.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. An English version appeared on Medscape.com.
Study confirms increased CVT with AstraZeneca COVID vaccine
A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.
The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.
The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.
“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.
he added.
Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.
Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.
“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.
For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.
The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.
The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.
Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.
Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.
In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.
There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).
There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).
For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.
The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.
The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.
“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.
They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.
The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.
The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.
“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.
he added.
Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.
Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.
“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.
For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.
The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.
The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.
Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.
Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.
In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.
There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).
There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).
For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.
The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.
The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.
“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.
They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.
The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.
The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.
“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.
he added.
Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.
Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.
“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.
For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.
The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.
The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.
Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.
Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.
In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.
There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).
There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).
For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.
The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.
The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.
“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.
They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer plans a vaccine to target all coronaviruses
Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.
With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.
Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported.
“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”
“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.
Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.
With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.
Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported.
“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”
“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.
Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.
With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.
Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported.
“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”
“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.
Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
More evidence the flu vaccine may guard against Alzheimer’s
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE