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

HDL a negative risk factor? or cholesterol efflux??

Although the data on HDL being protective of atherosclerotic disease is pretty consistent, there are negative studies, and the data on medications which dramatically improve HDL levels (eg, the cholesteryl ester transfer protein --CETP --inhibitors, such as torcetrapib) are clinically disappointing. there have been several explanations for this. for example, some HDL particles are "pro-inflammatory" and elicit an atherosclerotic response (which may be related to apolipoprotein C-III). a new article in NEJM highlights another angle -- that the issue is not the HDL number, but HDL's functionality in the reverse transport of cholesterol, as measured by the cholesterol efflux capacity (see  lipids HDL efflux capacity vs amt NEJM 2014 in dropbox, or  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409065). This article looks at the Dallas Heart Study, where they measured HDL levels, HDL particle concentrations, and cholesterol efflux capacity in 2924 adults free of cardiovascular disease and followed p
Read more

Drug company shenanigans: narcolepsy drug

I have not done a blog for a long time on drug company shenanigans. So it is my great pleasure to bring up a brand-new drug company approach to garner huge amounts of money (see  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/business/jazz-narcolepsy-avadel-patents.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare  ).  Based on an article by  Rebecca Robbins of the New York Times, who has written several articles on drug company excesses   As background, this will be my 42 nd  such blog: for the array, see  https://bucommunitymed.wpengine.com/page/4/?s=drug+company+shenanigans   Th e drug company  approach  this time  to extending  their  patents has a few “interesting” angles: -- this is a medication manufactured by Jazz Pharmaceuticals to treat narcolepsy: there are 2 versions: Xyrem and Xywav (Xywav has less sodium, so is marketed to those who should be on a low sodium diet). These meds are basically derivatives of gammahydroxybutyric acid (GHB)      -- the drug actually has a pretty
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 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:              -- there is very clear evidence that there are many individual risk factors that are associated with increased risk of a cardiovascu
Read more