A vaccine you can no longer get…

In 1998, a vaccine called LYMERix, developed by what is now GlaxoSmithKline, was licensed with the intention of preventing the contraction of Lyme Disease. However, its production was discontinued in 2002, and it was taken off the market (The History…). Normally, this would be due to a recall after finding new information or effects of a drug, but this was not the case for LYMERix. There were reports of serious effects after receiving the vaccine, but “these were not found to be statistically significant,” that is, in a higher proportion than in the normal population (Lyme Disease Vaccines). Unfortunately, this vaccine, and even our present inability to recieve it, was ended by the media.

With the reports of serious side effects, headlines appeared that drew negative connections between the vaccine and various illnesses, including arthritis. (The History…). Naturally, this gave the vaccine a bad image to the public and decreased the amount of people receiving the vaccines. Because GlaxoSmithKline, like all other businesses, does what makes the most financial sense, LYMERix was no longer financially viable and pulled out of production (Lyme Disease Vaccines). As a sibling of a sufferer of Lyme Disease, I find it absolutely disgusting that we cannot give those with a higher chance of contracting the illness protection, solely because of media producing click bait and bad public perception. I hope with enough time, the vaccine can be reintroduced, and can help many people once again.

 

Works Cited

Lyme Disease Vaccines. (2018, September 20). Retrieved from https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/lyme-disease-vaccines

The History of the Lyme Disease Vaccine. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-lyme-disease-vaccine

 

A vaccine for acne?

Researchers Wang et al. just released research regarding the bacteria Propionibacterium acnes, thought to be connected to the development in people of acne vulgaris. A secretory CAMP (Christie-Atkins-Munch-Petersen) factor that normally grows anaerobically can be mutated to show significant reduction of colonization of P. acnes as well as the resulting inflammation associated in mice. “Vaccination of mice with CAMP factor considerably reduced the growth of P. acnes,” concluded the researchers, in addition to the revelation that “P. acnes CAMP factor is an essential source of inflammation in acne vulgaris” (Wang et al.).

While this research was done in mice, the important part is that the bacteria thought to cause acne, Propionibacterium acnes, responded to the CAMP factor. There is no reason why this reaction would happen solely in mice, so it seems promising that this information can be used to create an acne treatment for humans. I find it extremely interesting that what was suspected for years, that at least some acne is caused by bacteria, has finally been scientifically supported. At the same time, there is possibility for treatment beyond any current method. This seems especially relevant to our class right now, as we have learned about the ways different antibiotics can attack bacteria at different stages in replication to impair the process, leading to a harder time colonizing the host. This CAMP factor with acne vulgaris seems to be a very similar process. This could be life-changing for many people with extreme acne vulgaris, and makes me wonder what other ailments we will find similar treatment paths for.

 

Works Cited

Wang, Y., Hata, T. R., Tong, Y. L., Kao, M., Zouboulis, C. C., Gallo, R. L., & Huang, C. (2018). The Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Propionibacterium acnes CAMP Factor-Targeted Acne Vaccines. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2018.05.032

Pertussis Outbreak In Elementary School

Ensuring that a child receives an education is a crucial part of childhood in our society. Unfortunately, children can now be put in danger by their unvaccinated classmates, threatening this extremely important stage in one’s life. In 2017 in South Korea, one such event occurred with nine children developing pertussis and becoming extremely sick, not only a detriment to their education, but also endangering their lives. “Among nine cases, eight were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction positive,” though there’s no way of knowing how many more less severe cases existed (Ryu et al). Unfortunately, some people have a compromised immune system or would have a bad reaction to vaccines, preventing them from receiving the vaccines and the protection from the associated diseases. However, the number of people this describes is generally so low in a population that proper vaccination of the rest of the people will keep these immunocompromised individuals from having a very high risk of developing the disease. With the rise of the anti-vaccination movement, people are refusing to vaccinate themselves and their children in fear of the possible side effects of the vaccines. Even more unfortunate, these claims are unsubstantiated or based off of information that has been discredited, such as Andrew Wakefield’s study. With a lower percentage of the population protected from these preventable diseases, it is more likely that outbreaks will occur, spreading from unvaccinated people to those immunocompromised and at higher risk for severe infection.

The main way to prevent this from happening of course is for every healthy, able person to be properly vaccinated according to recommendations by doctors. In this specific case, pertussis is contracted through inhalation of respiratory droplets, usually produced by the incessant coughing that accompanies pertussis (Ryu et al). Because a vaccine does not give immunity from a disease, it was a threat to all the children exposed, so certain preventative measures could also be taken in addition to vaccinating. The parents of any child with early symptoms of pertussis were contacted and quizzed about their child’s potential for sickness, sometimes leading to the isolation of potential carriers. Medical masks were also suggested both for those potentially sick, to prevent transmission of the disease, as well as for the healthy to prevent contracting pertussis. Nasopharyngeal swabs were performed by doctors to identify the diseased. The doctors also spoke to the public about pertussis and its dangers to increase public awareness and prevention techniques (Ryu et al).

 

Works Cited

Ryu, S., Kim, J. J., Chen, M., Jin, H., Lee, H. K., & Chun, B. C. (2018, January). Outbreak investigation in an elementary school: A case-control study among vaccinated students. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5795047/.

An End to Yearly Flu Vaccines?

Not quite, unfortunately. Instead, researchers Maamary, Wang, Tan, Palese, and Ravetch have found a way to use already existing vaccines and make them more effective by increasing the strains the body responds to through the immune response. The difficulty with the common influenza vaccine is that the disease is highly mutatable, so a vaccine that successfully functions one year may not work the next. By “targeting the Fc receptor, CD23, during vaccination with existing influenza vaccines (TIV) to increase the breadth and potency of the antibody response,” existing vaccines wouldn’t become irrelevant, but rather an improved tool (Maamary et al).

I find this development extremely interesting! At least to me, it sometimes seems like we treat medicine as a magic external fix, rather than a tool that works in tandem with our bodies to protect us. This study, however, emphasizes using our natural bodily defenses to fight off disease. It also points out how little we still know about our body and the way it functions. Perhaps other diseases could be targeted using the body’s defense mechanisms, stimulated by vaccines or medicine. Overall, this is the most interesting vaccine study I’ve come across so far.

Works Cited

Maamary, J., Wang, T. T., Tan, G. S., Palese, P., & Ravetch, J. V. (2017). Increasing the breadth and potency of response to the seasonal influenza virus vaccine by immune complex immunization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(38), 10172-10177. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707950114

Possible Vaccine Combinations for Malaria Identified

In 2017, researchers Bustamante et al. made new progress towards the development of a malaria vaccine by screening a variety of antigens. Still killing thousands each year, primarily in countries with less medical care, malaria is difficult to prevent with a vaccine, due to “high levels of parasite genetic diversity, which makes single target vaccines vulnerable to the development of variant-specific immunity” (Bustamante et. al). Essentially, malaria is so diversified that it would be difficult to create one vaccine that is equally efficient at combatting all the different strains, plus it creates a higher chance of one of the strains finding a way to survive despite the vaccine due to mutation. Naturally, they found that a vaccine that combines multiple points of attack towards the virus during different stages of its infectious process has a much better chance of actually preventing the disease.

This article also definitely passes the CRAAP test. It was published only last year, and no new malaria vaccine has been developed since to make it irrelevant. Also, it does deal with vaccines, making it relevant to the assignment. The authority of the article is also respectable, as it was published by seventeen researchers in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, which is a respected journal. Because it was peer-reviewed and isn’t just an article published on a blog or something without qualifications, it is much less likely to be biased or even manipulated by the author(s). This also speaks to the accuracy of the piece. Finally, the point-of-view is again only slightly biased if anything, as they simply reported the facts of their experiments, not their opinions on how it could be the greatest scientific breakthrough known to man or something of that nature.

Works Cited

Bustamante, L, et. al. (2017). A systematic and prospectively validated approach for identifying synergistic drug combinations against malaria. Malaria Journal, 17(1). doi:10.1186/s12936-018-2294-5

Children Vaccinated Early Not Unhealthier than Children With Spaced Vaccines

Many parents these days are worried about the effects of vaccines on their children, so another strategy to mitigate these effects as much as possible has arisen. Instead of potentially overwhelming the immune system of the child, parents have chosen to spread out the normal vaccines to give the children’s immune system more time to adjust. However, a recent study by Glanz, Newcomer, and Daley et al. has found that children who receive their vaccines according to the schedule professed by doctors, where the child gets a number of vaccines as soon as it is safe are just as healthy as the children who haven’t received the same vaccines. The researchers found that “the estimated mean cumulative antigen exposure from birth through age 23 months was 240.6 for cases and 242.9 for controls, a difference that was not statistically significant” (Glanz et al.).

I believe this study should be even more reassuring to parents that are worried about the health of their children. Even when children aren’t given vaccines, it’s usually due to the parents’ fear of their children becoming unhealthy.  After last week’s post, we know that there is no relation between vaccines and developing autism, and this week would suggest that there is in fact no scientifically-based concern that should deter parents from promptly vaccinating their children, preventing them and those they interact with from developing terrible diseases that have become much less common due to vaccines, at least in the first twenty-three months of life.

 

Works Cited

Glanz, J. M., Newcomer, S. R., Daley, et al. (2018). Association Between Estimated Cumulative Vaccine Antigen Exposure Through the First 23 Months of Life and Non–Vaccine-Targeted Infections From 24 Through 47 Months of Age. Jama, 319(9), 906. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0708

Andrew Wakefield

Andrew Wakefield is notorious for being the first person to assert a link between receiving a vaccine (specifically, the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, that most children must get before schooling) and the development of autism in children (Rao and Andrade). Wakefield began by attempting to find the cause of both physical and behavioral symptoms in what had previously been normally developing boys younger than twelve years old. He did a battery of tests on them, including “ileocolonoscopy and biopsy sampling, magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and lumbar puncture,” where the children were sedated (Wakefield et. al).

Many have criticized Wakefield’s conclusions, suggesting that although there may have appeared to be correlation in his study, it did not imply causation. Even worse, it came to light that the researchers involved had deliberately picked evidence to support their hypothesis of vaccines causing autism and intestinal issues, going as far as to flatly lie about the truth of data they presented as fact (Rao and Andrade). To prevent this type or even accusation of researcher tampering, a method called “double blind” testing is employed. In this situation, not only does the patient not know whether they are in the control or test group, but the researchers are not aware of which subjects are in which group as well. Clearly, this was not part of the Wakefield autism study, as the researchers had full knowledge of every aspect of their “study.” By searching out children that specifically fit their small definition of patient, and further only using twelve patients in total and extrapolating from that, their sampling methods completely negated any conclusions that they may have presented. Sure enough, the study was later discredited and retracted due to these very reasons, in addition to having further stomped ethical boundaries by not getting complete consent for some of the procedures they performed on the children (Rao and Andrade).

 

Works Cited

Picture: https://images.thestar.com/pUwD071fmLH6i2nYHl4sgNkMD1I=/1086×819/smart/filters:cb(1512546339944)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/life/health_wellness/2011/01/07/andrew_wakefields_fraudulent_vaccine_research/wakefield3.jpeg

 

Rao, T. S., & Andrade, C. (2011). The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(2), 95. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.82529

Wakefield, A., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 352(9123), 234-235. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)77837-5