flu nasal spray ineffective

There was a recent CDC evaluation of the effectiveness of the live attenuated flu vaccine (LAIV), finding essentially no protective effect last year (see http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0622-laiv-flu.html  ). results:

--in May, the CDC found preliminary data of vaccine effectiveness for those 2-17 yo:
    --LAIV: 3% (CI: -49 to 37%), so no significant effect!!
    --inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV): 63% (52-72) effective
--bottom line: "CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) today voted that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), also known as the “nasal spray” flu vaccine, should not be usedduring the 2016-2017 flu season"
--the annual flu vaccine for anyone >6 months old should be one of the shots: the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) or recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV)

commentary:
--there has been a pretty consistently poor showing for LAIV over the past few years: the prior 2 seasons found significantly decreased effectiveness as well. and before then, even when there was pretty much similar effectiveness of LAIV and IIV in kids, there were diminishing effectiveness in adults >30 yo (on my review of the age-based effectiveness published by the CDC)
--these results were pretty surprising, since
    --LAIV is a live virus, and is associated with higher antibody responses, and some suggestion of more efficacy than IIV with influenza virus genetic drift
    --the flu virus attacks through the nasal mucosa, and the local IgA response to the live vaccine should increase its protection over the injected killed vaccine
    --earlier studies found at least equal and some superior efficacy of LAIV: 80% in 2012
    ​--there was even early speculation that it could be given less often (perhaps every 2 years, given the increased immunogenicity)
    --as a result of the above logic, I have been preferentially using LAIV in kids, when appropriate, though not in those >30 yo
--so, I am really not sure why there is less effectiveness for the live vaccine over the past several years. but the data speak volumes, given their consistency.... and we should not use this vaccine on anyone in the upcoming year or in the future, barring documented improvements in technology/efficacy.

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more