Category: Vaccine

Page 141«..1020..140141142143..150160..»

Army sends letter to soldiers booted from service for refusing COVID vaccine, asks if they’d like to return – Straight Arrow News

November 23, 2023

Click to see headlines

Far Left

+0

Click to close

Left

+0

Click to close

Lean Left

+0

Click to close

Center

+0

Click to close

Lean Right

+0

Click to close

Right

+0

Click to close

Far Right

+0

Click to close

+0

Click to close

0 other sources covering this story

Total News Sources

0

Leaning Left

0

Center

0

Leaning Right

0

Last Updated

1 day ago

Bias Distribution Powered by Ground NewsTM

Continued here:

Army sends letter to soldiers booted from service for refusing COVID vaccine, asks if they'd like to return - Straight Arrow News

COVID-19 vaccines in 2023 – Therapeutic Guidelines

November 23, 2023

These vaccines are really well tolerated by children. Compared to other vaccines, they don't seem to be particularly likely to cause fever or lots of other uncomfortable symptoms.

[Music] Welcome to the Australian Prescriber Podcast. Australian Prescriber, independent, peer-reviewed and free.

We've heard a lot about COVID-19 vaccination early in the pandemic and, in fact, that is what has given us a pathway to resuming the function of our society. COVID-19 is an ongoing issue, however, a constantly evolving one, and vaccines are on the front line of managing it. So here in 2023, what do we do about COVID-19 vaccines in our everyday lives, and what does the future look like? Ketaki Sharma is a staff specialist at the NCIRS, the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, and she's co-authored an article in Australian Prescriber about COVID-19 vaccines in 2023, and she joins us on the podcast today. Ket, welcome to the program.

Thanks, David. Thank you for having me.

So tell me a little bit about how COVID-19 evolving has affected vaccination and, potentially, does it affect at all the rationale for vaccination?

Yeah, it absolutely does. So COVID-19 has evolved starting from quite early in the pandemic with the emergence of different variants. I'm sure the listeners would be familiar with the nomenclature used for those variants. We started off with Alpha, Beta, then we had a very big wave of Delta. That one was particularly virulent and certainly had an impact on the push for vaccination because we were seeing much more severe disease. More recently, all of those older variants have been replaced by Omicron. So since the emergence and global domination of Omicron during 2022, we no longer detect any of those older variants.

As we all know, the original vaccines were based on what we call the ancestral or the original version of SARS-CoV-2, sometimes also called the Wuhan strain because that's where it emerged. We are now facing a virus that's adapted with several different rounds of mutations. There is evidence that when you look at the neutralising antibody or the immune responses to that original vaccine compared to some of the newer vaccines based on variants, there is a benefit to having a vaccine that is based on a more recent variant of SARS-CoV-2. So it has, and it probably will continue to influence COVID-19 vaccine development just like we see with the annual flu vaccine, which is tailored every year to target the most recent strain.

So perhaps I can ask you: COVID-19 vaccination now, what's the primary aim of what we're trying to do in terms for our patients and for society? It sounds like things have probably shifted from that time at the very beginning.

Yeah, absolutely. So the initial stated aim of the Australian COVID-19 vaccine program was to reduce infection and even potentially reduce transmission of the virus. But now we are well past that, and the main goal is to reduce the risk of severe illness specifically. That's why in the most recent rounds of booster advice, the people that are targeted are really those who still are at risk of severe illness, namely older adults and people with risk factors like medical conditions that increase their risk of severe COVID.

Right. So perhaps maybe we can run through the booster recommendation first. Obviously, the vast majority of Australians have had primary vaccination. Talk me through the booster recommendations now.

The two key groups that should be vaccinated now would be people aged 75 years or older if they haven't had a dose in the last 6 months. You can consider vaccination for people aged 65 to 74, that includes healthy 65- to 74-year-olds. You can also consider vaccination for people aged 18 to 64 with severe immunocompromise. There was also an earlier statement issued by ATAGI [Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation] in February of 2023 that was a little bit broader. So that advised to consider vaccination for adults aged 18 to 64 even if they have no risk factors and for 5- to 17-year-olds who do have medical risk factors. So if people hadn't even had that first dose and so they're still well over 6 months since their last dose, you could also consider catching them up as well. I know all of this is extremely complicated and hard to take in when you're listening, so I would encourage listeners to have a look at the COVID-19 chapter of the Australian Immunisation Handbook, which has recently been published and which summarises all of this information in a more digestible way.

For that considered category, what would make individuals decide to have that vaccine or not?

So obviously the most important thing, I think, is the individual's preferences. So some people are quite concerned and they want regular booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines even if they're not in one of those risk groups. So sometimes we find ourselves having to reassure people the other way that in fact, actually, if you are a young healthy person you don't need another dose right now. So personal preference is one of the most important ones.

Other things to consider are if they have had previous COVID-19 infections, which we think the vast majority of Australians have had. So recent serosurveys have showed over two-thirds of adults have evidence of past infection, but if they don't think they've ever had COVID, then they wouldn't have hybrid immunity. So that's another reason you might want to give a relatively younger adult a booster. The other thing is life circumstances. So for example, if somebody's about to go on a holiday and they really don't want to get COVID, impending overseas travel or a new job working in a health facility where they anticipate they might have increased risk, that just might influence the specific timing of giving someone a booster dose.

As someone who's had COVID overseas, it wasn't a lot of fun, so I can certainly understand the rationale behind that. Can we just talk a little bit through hybrid immunity, because I think people wonder about that a lot?

So hybrid immunity is clearly better than having protection from just vaccination alone or from just infection alone. In Australia, we think the majority of the population probably already has this hybrid immunity, but both of those types of protection wane over time. On top of that, we will potentially keep facing new variants of SARS-CoV-2. So one of the more recent ones called BA.2.86 has some mutations that may make the vaccines or past infections a little bit less protective. That doesn't necessarily mean it'll cause severe diseaseit just means that hybrid immunity will not necessarily provide very long-term protection against severe disease for all members of the population. So we have to keep on monitoring the evidence to see which groups are emerging as being at continued risk.

Now in terms of which vaccine to go with. You've put a link in there to a beautiful A3 poster. How would we go about approaching what type of vaccine to give people in this booster setting?

I think now we're sort of entering a situation where it almost shouldn't matter. Just like the annual flu vaccine, the vast majority of people don't turn up to their GP or pharmacist asking for a specific brand of flu vaccine. They just ask for that year's flu vaccine. So that's been the case with the variant-based vaccines we've had so far. So we've had two different BA.1-based vaccines. We've had two different BA.4-5-based vaccines, and all of those are based on subvariants of Omicron. ATAGI's advice has been to consider them all basically equivalent, even if BA.4-5 was a little bit later than BA.1, they appear to be equally immunogenic against the circulating variants at the time that they were used. We now also have from the TGA [Therapeutic Goods Administration] the approval of two newer vaccines based on XBB.1.5, which is another Omicron subvariant that's even more recent.

So we currently know that those vaccines are very immunogenic against the newer Omicron subvariants, including BA.2.86. We don't yet have clinical data to show if they're very superior in their protection against severe disease. So the possibilities are if they turn out to be very superior, then potentially there could be a preferential recommendation. But it seems equally likely that people would be recommended to just have the latest vaccine that's available, not consider which brand, not consider the specific doses, just get your COVID-19 vaccine.

That simplicity in a sea of choice is definitely something that's appreciated for us as frontline clinicians. I think the other little bit of complexity is about what to do about primary vaccination. There might be some adults who haven't been vaccinated who might be still keen to get vaccinated, but there's obviously a large number of children who have never been vaccinated. What are our current primary vaccination recommendations?

So ATAGI's current recommendations are that all children aged 5 and older should have a primary course of 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine. For children under the age of 5, so 6 months up to 5 years old, you're only recommended to have a primary course if you have risk conditions for severe COVID-19. So it's quite a limited vaccination program for those very young children, but recommended for all children 5 and older. But I will mention that other countries around the world, some of them have stopped vaccinating healthy young children or reduced down to a single dose. So that's potentially something that we could see around the world becoming more common. I think part of the reason for that is widespread exposure to past infections of SARS-CoV-2. Even at the very beginning before anyone was exposed, the risk of severe COVID-19 was always extremely low in young children.

So let's get the flip side of this, and I think some of the concerns that maybe some people had about vaccinating in younger children and adolescents was about vaccine safety. If the accusation before was that we hadn't had enough experience, certainly we've had a lot of experience with vaccine safety now.

Yeah, absolutely. Over 13 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered globally. So we definitely have a lot of safety data, probably more safety data on these vaccines than any other product in history. In Australia specifically, there is data available on COVID-19 vaccine safety in children, which you can link to from the NCIRS website through a program called AusVaxSafety. It looks at the reactions reported by children in the days following vaccination, and what you'll find is that these vaccines are really well tolerated by children. Compared to other vaccines, they don't seem to be particularly likely to cause fever or lots of other uncomfortable symptoms. The other safety concern that has been raised in relation to young people is myocarditis, so inflammation of the heart muscle, and also pericarditis, which is the heart lining, but that tends to be more common in older adults.

Myocarditis, the highest risk is in young adolescents or young adults 16, 17 would be the peak age, and seems to be most common after the second dose, but still overall rare. And it's important to recognise that the risk of myocarditis is much higher with the virus itself. So based on that riskbenefit analysis, vaccination was still recommended. As I've mentioned, it doesn't seem to be something that young children seem to be at risk of.

So I know I'm getting really into the minutiae here, but if someone does have an adverse event, what should their clinicians do then? Should they be reporting that adverse event, and what about revaccination after that?

Yeah, so we would encourage clinicians to report any adverse events that you think are either severe or unusual. So you don't need to report somebody coming forward with a fever or a local injection-site reaction that you think is within the expected norm following vaccination. But certainly severe adverse events, we would request all immunisation providers to report those to the TGA. Then in terms of assessment and management of the adverse event, as with all other vaccines, it depends on the severity.

So the only absolute contraindications to future doses of COVID-19 vaccines would be anaphylaxis or a very severe adverse event that has been attributed to a previous dose of that vaccine. The only other contraindication is the very unique one, which is a previous history of capillary leak syndrome, which is specifically a contraindication to the Moderna vaccine. But that's so rare, it almost feels strange to mention. The main thing to recall is anaphylaxis doesn't seem to be any more common with COVID-19 vaccines compared to any other type of vaccine, and the vast majority of people tolerate these vaccines really well.

So let's look forward a little bit in terms of what the future might hold, always a slightly dangerous thing within COVID-19. So how might the future variant landscape evolve? How do you think we'll work with vaccines to try and combat those evolutions?

So there's actually already a committee established whose entire remit is this question, and it's a technical advisory group to the WHO specifically on COVID-19 vaccine composition. So what that committee is doing is monitoring the virus and variants as they evolve and issues guidance. So in May of 2023, that committee recommended development of vaccines based on the XBB.1.5 subvariant, which is exactly what we've seen. So I think in future we can see similar coordinated efforts to recommend which variants appear to be either particularly virulent or particularly dominant, and that can inform future vaccine development.

There are also vaccine developers looking at broader vaccines, so using components from different types of coronaviruses and not just focused on one particular variant. So theoretically, those could provide broader protection. There's also vaccines being looked at and even registered in a couple of countries overseas with a different platform like intranasal vaccines. That again, could theoretically broaden your immune response because it engages the innate immune system and different parts of your immune system. So there is a potential that we may see better vaccines come out in the future but, at the very least, I think we can expect to see periodically updated vaccines to match what the most dominant variants are.

Finally, I think a question which often gets asked: what about timing with the influenza vaccine? That's obviously another vaccine that we give seasonally and may well be nice to align with the COVID-19 vaccination program. Do you think that's something that we're likely to see in the future?

Yeah, absolutely. In fact, that's another product that is being developed by multiple manufacturers. So combined COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. We are not yet sure what the exact seasonality of SARS-CoV-2 is. In Australia, we have had peaks over summer months as well, but we certainly have also seen severe illness rise over winter months. The last ATAGI guidance for booster doses was issued in September, so it does make sense that, 6 months later if you have patients that are still at high risk, it may well be very convenient. By that time, I expect we may have updated advice in the Handbook, but it may well make sense to combine those two vaccines. One of the biggest benefits of that is the logistics for providers not having to bring people back multiple times and also being able to be opportunistic. Because if someone's coming in for the flu vaccine and they haven't been thinking about COVID, you can look at their risk factors and you can get them vaccinated while they're there.

Great. Well, we thank you and everyone at the NCIRS for all their hard work in trying to make sure that we keep up with this evolving landscape. Thank you for your work on this article in Australian Prescriber. Please do go and check it out, and thank you very much for joining us on the podcast today.

Thanks for having me, David. Before I go, can I just plug the NCIRS website where we're soon going to have an updated decision aid for COVID-19 vaccines. So that's something that your patients will be able to click through themselves and think about all of those factors that we've discussed and think about whether they might be ready to have another booster dose.

Brilliant, that sounds incredibly useful, and thank you very much for joining us.

[Music]

Ketaki Sharma is a member of the Australian Regional Immunisation Alliance. Ketaki contributed to the authorship of the Australian Immunisation Handbook and statements from the Australian Technical Advisory Group for Immunisation. I'm a member of the Drug Utilisation Subcommittee of the PBAC. The views of the guests and the host on this podcast may not represent Therapeutic Guidelines or Australian Prescriber. I'm David Liew and once again, thank you for joining us on this Australian Prescriber Podcast. [This interview was conducted on 21 October 2023.]

Follow this link:

COVID-19 vaccines in 2023 - Therapeutic Guidelines

Pfizer Coronavirus Resources: Covid-19 Updates, News, Information – Pfizer

November 23, 2023

Our scientific efforts played an important role during a global health crisis. Learn more about SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 disease, and Pfizers work throughout the pandemic.

Coronaviruses comprise a large family of viruses, some of which cause respiratory illnesses in humans, ranging from common colds to more severe conditions.1 The coronavirus involved in the outbreak that began in 2019 was named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).2 The disease it causes was named coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19.2

From the beginning of the pandemic, we understood that fighting COVID-19 would require the power of science and unprecedented collaboration among scientists, companies, governments, and other stakeholders around the world.

Since 2020, we have been working on a multi-pronged approach to address COVID-19 and today we are focused on prevention through vaccinations, detection, and treatment for appropriate adult patients through medication. While there have been advancements in the fight against COVID, there is still more work to be done. At Pfizer, we remain unwavering in our commitment to combatting COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccine: Prevention through getting eligible people vaccinated is critical in helping the fight against COVID-19. Thats why, in 2020, we set out to make the impossible possible. In collaboration with BioNTech, we delivered a breakthrough COVID-19 vaccine to the world using messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which is a molecule that contains the instructions or recipe that directs the cells to make a protein using its natural machinery.

We worked with tremendous urgency, without compromising quality, coordinating closely with trial participants and investigators, regulatory bodies, other companies, and governments to bring this vaccine forward. Our success was made possible in part due to Pfizers longstanding history in vaccine research, development, and delivery, which dates back more than a century.

COVID-19 Treatment: In early 2020, recognizing the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic around the world, Pfizer initiated a drug discovery program in an effort to develop a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 virus, complementing our vaccination efforts. We assembled a committed, multidisciplinary team to support the development of treatment intended for those with COVID-19 that might be high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.

Pfizer researchers identified an oral protease inhibitor to progress into clinical studies. On December 22, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the treatment of eligible patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at high risk of progressing to severe illness. On May 25, 2023, the FDA approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.

Since 2020, we have continued to scale up our at-risk manufacturing efforts to expand vaccine and treatment access to different countries, based on local authorization or approval. Billions of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines and tens of millions of oral COVID-19 treatment courses have been distributed to countries around the world.

We remain committed to working toward broad, equitable, and affordable access to Pfizer and BioNTechs COVID-19 vaccine and Pfizers COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment for eligible patients around the world and are working with governments and other appropriate partners on a tailored approach.

In May 2023, three years after COVID-19 was designated as a pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared the end of the Public Health Emergency (PHE) for COVID-19.3,4 While clinical and real-world data still show that existing COVID-19 vaccine options can help protect against the virus, we are continuing to follow the science by exploring new vaccine approaches that may be needed as the virus evolves. We also continue to run a COVID-19 clinical development program, consisting of completed and ongoing clinical trials, to evaluate our oral therapy for potential use in additional patient populations.

Our goal is to stay ahead of the virus by continuing to progress cutting-edge science that we believe may help serve patients in need. We are proactively advancing a multi-pronged strategy to evaluate additional treatment candidates as well as the potential for combination therapy.

In the meantime, we believe that one of the best safeguards against the spread of COVID-19 is getting all eligible people up to date with their vaccination schedule, and for those who do get COVID-19, educating and encouraging them to speak with their healthcare professional about available treatment options.

We remain committed to working toward broad, equitable, and affordable access to Pfizers COVID-19 vaccine and oral COVID-19 treatment for eligible patients around the world. To that end, we continue to work with governments and other appropriate partners on a tailored approach. While developing groundbreaking treatments and vaccines for COVID-19 are crucial, we do not feel we are fulfilling our broader commitment to patients if we dont work to make our vaccines and treatments accessible to every eligible person who needs them.

Albert Bourla announces an important agreement with the U.S. government that will make it easier for patients to access Pfizers oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. This will help ensure that the United States will have a robust stockpile for future use and helps provide more clarity on the commercial market for COVID related products. This is the next logical step in Pfizers unrelenting effort to help ensure every eligible patient continues to have access to this potentially life-saving medicine.

This video includes forward-looking statements that are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Please refer to Pfizer press release for more information. We also encourage you to read our reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including the sections captioned Risk Factors and Forward Looking Information and Factors that May Affect Future Results, for a description of such substantial risks and uncertainties. These reports are available at pfizer.com and the SECs website.

Frequently Asked Questions About Pfizer and COVID-19

Like the flu, the virus that causes COVID-19 mutates often, which means it can escape the defenses your immune system built up against earlier strains. As of September 2023, about 85% of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. are caused by Omicron XBB strains5 and people who were vaccinated in past seasons may no longer be adequately protected because their body may not recognize the new strains. This season's vaccine is matched to the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant, while the previous bivalent vaccine was matched to the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages.

The vaccine should be administered at least 2 months after the last dose of any COVID-19 vaccine.6 Talk to your healthcare provider or pharmacist if you are unsure if you need an additional dose.

If you recently had COVID-19, you still need to stay up to date with your vaccines, but you may consider delaying your next vaccine dose by 3 months from when your symptoms started or, if you had no symptoms, when you first received a positive test.

Talk to your healthcare provider about taking over-the-counter (OTC) medicine, such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, aspirin (only for people ages 18 years or older), or antihistamines.7

While vaccines are one of the best ways individuals can help reduce the risk of infection, COVID-19 cases are still possible, and some people are at high risk for severe illness. Therefore, it is important that we have access to testing and treatment options for individuals that are diagnosed with COVID-19. This is why both vaccines and treatment options are necessary to help reduce the larger burden of COVID-19 disease in the world.

COVID-19 oral treatments may be right for you, even if you are vaccinated, if you are at high risk of progressing to severe illness. Talk to your doctor for individual medical advice.

Clinical and real-world data show that COVID-19 vaccines can help protect against COVID-19, particularly against the risk for severe disease and hospitalization. However, if you do get sick, have symptoms of COVID-19, and have a high risk factor for progression to severe illness, you should speak with your doctor about treatment options as soon as possible.

Side effects may vary depending on the individual and which vaccine is administered. Be sure to consult a healthcare provider to make decisions that are right for your medical history.

Safety is a top concern for all of us and Pfizer takes reports of side effects that are potentially associated with our COVID-19 vaccines very seriously. While hundreds of millions of people have taken the vaccine safely, it is important to note that every medicineand vaccinehas side effects.8 These side effects are rigorously monitored in clinical trials to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks.9

More detailed information is available on the CDCs Possible Side Effects After Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine page. Please visit our Coronavirus Resources page for more information about Pfizers work on COVID-19.

Emergency Use Authorization

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (2023-2024 Formula) has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 6 months through 11 years of age. The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of the medical product under Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act unless the declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner. Please see EUA Fact Sheets at http://www.cvdvaccine-us.com

U.S. FDA Emergency Use Authorization Statement

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the emergency use of PAXLOVID for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.

PAXLOVID is authorized only for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of the emergency use of PAXLOVID under 564(b)(1) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act unless the authorization is terminated or revoked sooner.

Originally posted here:

Pfizer Coronavirus Resources: Covid-19 Updates, News, Information - Pfizer

COVID-19 vaccination before first infection may reduce risk of … – News-Medical.Net

November 23, 2023

Receiving at least one dose of a covid-19 vaccine before the first infection is strongly associated with a reduced risk of developing post-covid-19 condition, commonly known as long covid, finds a study published by The BMJ today.

The findings, based on data for more than half a million Swedish adults, show that unvaccinated individuals were almost four times as likely to be diagnosed with long covid than those who were vaccinated before first infection.

The researchers stress that causality cannot be directly inferred from this observational evidence, but say their results "highlight the importance of primary vaccination against covid-19 to reduce the burden of post-covid-19 condition in the population."

The effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe complications of acute covid-19 are already known, but their effectiveness against long covid is less clear because most previous studies have relied on self-reported symptoms.

To address this, researchers investigated the effectiveness of primary covid-19 vaccination (the first two doses and the first booster dose within the recommended schedule) against post-covid-19 condition using data from the SCIFI-PEARL project, a register based study of the covid-19 pandemic in Sweden.

Their findings are based on 589,722 adults (aged 18 and over) from the two largest regions of Sweden with a first covid-19 infection registered between 27 December 2020 and 9 February 2022.

Individuals were followed from a first covid-19 infection until a diagnosis of post-covid-19 condition, vaccination, reinfection, death, emigration or end of follow-up (30 November 2022), whichever came first. Average follow-up was 129 days in the total study population (vaccinated: 197 days, not vaccinated: 112 days).

Individuals who had received at least one covid-19 vaccine dose before infection were considered vaccinated.

A range of factors including age, sex, existing conditions, number of healthcare contacts during 2019, education level, employment status, and dominant virus variant at time of infection were also accounted for in the analysis.

Of 299,692 vaccinated individuals with covid-19, 1,201 (0.4%) were diagnosed with post-covid-19 condition during follow-up, compared with 4,118 (1.4%) of 290,030 unvaccinated individuals.

Those who received one or more covid-19 vaccines before the first infection were 58% less likely to receive a diagnosis of post-covid-19 condition than unvaccinated individuals.

And vaccine effectiveness increased with each successive dose before infection (a dose-response effect). For example, the first dose reduced the risk of post-covid-19 condition by 21%, two doses by 59%, and three or more doses by 73%.

This is an observational study, which provides less conclusive evidence of causality, and the researchers point to several limitations such as limited data on post-covid-19 condition symptoms and that the diagnosis code is not yet validated, the potential impact of reinfections on vaccine effectiveness, and expectations about the protective effect of vaccination.

However, this was a large, well designed study based on high quality, individual level registry data with a low risk of self-reporting bias, suggesting that the results are robust.

As such, the authors conclude: "The results from this study highlight the importance of complete primary vaccination coverage against covid-19, not only to reduce the risk of severe acute covid-19 infection but also the burden of post-covid-19 condition in the population."

These findings, combined with evidence from other studies, highlight the association between the immune system and the development of post-viral conditions, and underline the importance of timely vaccination during pandemics, say researchers in a linked editorial.

They call for continued investigation into the evolution of long term residual symptoms of covid-19 and other viral illnesses as well as steps to "improve the accuracy of recording both recovery and continued illness after infection, and in quantifying key family, social, financial, and economic outcomes."

"Such estimates are fundamental to unlocking the funding required for future research and increased investment in specialist clinical services offering treatment and rehabilitation to support patients with post-viral conditions," they conclude.

Source:

Journal reference:

Lundberg-Morris, L., et al. (2023) Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-covid-19 condition among 589722 individuals in Sweden: population based cohort study. BMJ. doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076990.

Link:

COVID-19 vaccination before first infection may reduce risk of ... - News-Medical.Net

Vaccine Updates: Two Announcements From Pfizer – Managed Healthcare Executive

November 23, 2023

On October 26, Pfizer and BioNTech released positive top-line data for their mRNA-based combination vaccine that targets influenza and COVID-19. The clinical trial compared the vaccine candidates to a licensed influenza vaccine and an adapted COVID-19 vaccine. The lead formulations showed strong immune responses to influenza A, influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 strains.

The Flu and COVID-19 follow a seasonal pattern, with increased risk in the fall and winter. Co-infections and consecutive respiratory infections can amplify the risk of severe illness and hospitalizations, particularly among high-risk groups.

Combination vaccines have the potential to become a mainstay of routine vaccination against respiratory diseases, especially for the vaccination of populations who have a higher risk of severe illness, Ugur Sahin, M.D., CEO and Co-founder of BioNTech, stated in the press release.

The combination formulations evaluated in the Phase 1/2 trial had a safety profile similar to the COVID-19 vaccine. The levels of antibodies produced in response to the lead formulations were comparable to those seen with approved flu and COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, when comparing the vaccine candidates to the flu vaccine, the levels of antibodies produced were higher than what is seen with the licensed quadrivalent influenza vaccine.

A Phase 3 clinical trial for the lead formulations is expected to commence in the near future. The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based combination vaccine for influenza and COVID-19 has received Fast Track Designation from the FDA.

Data from the Phase 1/2 trial has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Also, on October 20, Pfizer announced FDA approval of Penbraya, a pentavalent vaccine that covers the most common serogroups causing meningococcal disease in adolescents and young adults ages 10-25.

Penbraya combines components from two other vaccines, Trumenba and Nimenrix, to protect against the five most common serogroups of meningococcal bacteria causing invasive meningococcal disease worldwide. Penbraya is given as a two-dose series, administered six months apart.

Meningococcal disease is a rare but serious illness that can be fatal within 24 hours. It can also cause long-term disabilities for those who survive.

The FDAs decision is based on the positive results from the Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate compared to currently licensed meningococcal vaccines, with the goal of determining immunologic noninferiority. The Phase 3 trialincluded more than 2,400 participants from the U.S. and Europe.

Penbraya reduces the number of doses needed to be fully vaccinated against the most common serogroups. This makes the vaccination process more efficient and may increase vaccination rates among adolescents and young adults. Penbraya could also potentially decrease the number of meningococcal disease cases, lower mortality rates, and reduce the long-term consequences and costs associated with meningitis outbreaks.

More:

Vaccine Updates: Two Announcements From Pfizer - Managed Healthcare Executive

VAERS: A Critical Part of the National Vaccine Safety System – FDA.gov

November 23, 2023

By: Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), FDA andDaniel Jernigan, M.D., MPH, director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC

Monitoring vaccine safety is an important responsibility shared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

And there's no part of America's vaccine safety system more talked about than the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS is an early-warning monitoring system for vaccine safety. It allows patients, pharmaceutical companies, medical personnel and other users to report concerns about medical events that occurred after someone received a vaccination. CDC and FDA experts partner to review reports and, when appropriate, to make changes to clinical recommendations. In some cases, these changes can include pausing or stopping the administration of a vaccine.

What VAERS doesnt do, though, is tell us whether a vaccine caused a medical issue. That requires investigation.

VAERS has a proven track record of successfully helping to identify safety issues.

What follows below explains how VAERS works, how successful it's been and addresses some of the common myths about the system.

VAERS: A Critical Part of the National Vaccine Safety System Vaccines are a cornerstone of modern medicine, preventing debilitating diseases and saving countless lives. As we evaluate new vaccines, safety is one of the most important areas we monitor, because vaccines, like any medical intervention, are not without risks.

To protect the public, the United States has built a multilayered system that monitors vaccine safety, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS, established in 1990, is a collaborative effort between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). When a potential issue is detected, the system raises the flag for scientific experts to investigate further.

While arguably the most visible piece of Americas vaccine safety surveillance system, VAERS isnt always well understood. Some critics expect it to do things it isnt designed to do, while others use the publicly available, unverified information to inaccurately claim that VAERS reports show that vaccines definitively caused certain adverse - or harmful health outcomes.

How Does VAERS Work?

Both the CDC and the FDA take every adverse event seriously. We investigate all events that potentially indicate a safety concern.

VAERS relies on individuals, including healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public, to submit reports of adverse events following vaccination. Some of these reported events may be true adverse reactions to a vaccine, while others may not be related. These reports, which range from mild reactions, like soreness and fatigue, to more severe complications, are reviewed by VAERS staff within days to identify potential patterns of concern.

The fundamental question in vaccine safety is if an event is directly caused by a vaccine. To understand whether an adverse event is related to the administration of a vaccine most often requires careful examination of the facts underlying multiple reports to VAERS. Further studies are often conducted involving comparisons of the rate of an event to rates of the same event in populations that have not been vaccinated, or who have been vaccinated at a different point in time. Since most events that occur after vaccination also occur in people who are not vaccinated, these comparisons are critical to sorting out whether vaccines may have caused a particular event.

Our experts also look carefully to see if there are differences in reported adverse events between what men and women, or between different ethnic groups to determine whether particular populations may be at risk.

After an adverse event is reported, the information is processed and sent to the CDC and the FDA. Physicians and scientists there collaborate on evaluating the reports. In the case of reports related to the COVID-19 vaccines, for example, FDA and CDC experts assessed relevant data from serious reports and shared important findings with each other. (Serious reports are defined by the following outcomes: death, a life-threatening adverse event, inpatient hospitalization or extension of existing hospitalization, a persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions, or a congenital anomaly/birth defect.)

Scientists perform further analysis using other safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, or in the FDAs Biologics Effectiveness and Safety system and data obtained in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In addition to information obtained by VAERS investigators, these systems are better able to assess health risks and shed light on whether the vaccine caused the adverse event. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC and the FDA had hundreds of people working on vaccine safety, and serious reports were followed up within five days. This includes reports of serious events that were in the original list identified during clinical trials or new potential safety concerns that warrant further review. The five-day timeline for follow-up remains true to this day.

Not long after COVID-19 vaccines were authorized in late 2020, there was a backlog of reports, due in part to requirements under FDAs emergency use authorizations that require manufacturers and vaccination providers to report any serious adverse event, regardless of whether it was believed the vaccine caused the event. During that initial time, a backlog of serious reports was cleared within a month and reports of non-serious events were cleared within three months.

What are the limitations of VAERS?

Reports sent to VAERS may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, and unverified information. Only after experts have reviewed all the facts and looked at all available data will they make a determination about the cause of the event.

Investigators may or may not reach out to the individual who submits a report to VAERS. VAERS experts may contact health systems or facilities for information related to a report to ensure they have all available information. This has sometimes led to confusion for individuals who have reported serious events, as they assume the ball was dropped. Even though the person who submitted a report may never hear from VAERS, without fail, work is happening to obtain more information about reported life-threatening events.

How has VAERS performed?

VAERS has worked again and again.

It has helped identify notable COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns. After VAERS detected an increase in rare, life-threatening allergic reactions just weeks after the first vaccines were administered, for example, the CDC and the FDA provided information and guidance to help prevent and manage them. Just days after VAERS detected that six out of the more than 6 million patients who received the Janssen vaccine had developed blood clots, the CDC and the FDA paused the use of the vaccine to better understand this adverse event. And after detecting myocarditis following the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC provided advice to healthcare providers about the potential risk and recommended that some people, primarily teen and young adult males, space out their vaccines. Additionally, the FDA announced revisions to the patient and provider fact sheets to reflect updated information about adverse events, including, for example, information about the suggested increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination.

VAERS is constantly evolving, with ongoing efforts to enhance its data quality and analysis capabilities. While not without limitations, VAERS has proven to be vital in detecting both potential and actual safety issues and informing vaccine policy decisions that protect the health of the American public. Thats a job the CDC and the FDA take seriously. We know that failure to detect and communicate a serious health issue related to a vaccine could impact confidence not only in COVID-19 vaccines but in all vaccines.

Bottom line: VAERS works and has a track record that proves it.

More:

VAERS: A Critical Part of the National Vaccine Safety System - FDA.gov

New UW study examines COVID-19 vaccines in people with weakened immune systems – University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

November 19, 2023

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health are exploring the ideal vaccine booster strategy for immunosuppressed patients to protect those at higher risk of severe illness and complications from COVID-19 infection.

The goal of the clinical trial titled Additional Recombinant COVID-19 Humoral and Cell-Mediated Immunogenicity in Immunosuppressed Populations, or ARMOR, is to determine whether a recombinant booster COVID-19 vaccine dose will improve sustained immunity against the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who live with inflammatory bowel disease, also called IBD, or solid organ transplant recipients and whose medical treatments involve staying on immunosuppressive drugs.

Jessie Geraci-Perez 608-220-1514 jgeraci-perez@uwhealth.org

Participants who enroll in this trial will receive the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, which is a recombinant vaccine and differs from the Pfizer or Moderna drugs in that it directs the immune system to recognize specific pieces of the virus.

Solid organ transplant recipients take medications to suppress the immune system in order to prevent acute organ rejection. Similarly, patients with IBD are often prescribed immunosuppressant drugs to treat and manage their conditions.

Studies have shown that those who receive immunosuppressive medications, like corticosteroids, are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19 if they are infected, according to Freddy Caldera, DO, MS, associate professor of medicine at the UW School of Medicine and Public Health and gastroenterologist, UW Health.

The COVID-19 virus is here to stay, he said. As we learn more about COVID-19, our research must also evolve to protect patients who are more vulnerable to getting the disease and experiencing long-term complications.

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that one in five Americans infected with COVID-19 endure long-term complications including blood clots, neurological issues and kidney issues. The significant health risks faced by immunosuppressed patients demands further research to develop more effective vaccine strategies, according to Caldera.

There is a breadth of research on what happens immediately after infection however, we are still learning about the repercussions of getting COVID-19 and post-COVID complications, he said. As immunosuppressed populations return to more daily living, we must examine the best vaccine strategy to protect them from COVID-19, so they wont have to trade feeling well with protection from this virus.

The Novavax COVID-19 vaccine is one of the three that are recommended for the general population. This vaccine was updated in fall 2023 to include the spike protein from the Omicron variant lineage XBB. Researchers hypothesize that this type of vaccine, a recombinant vaccine, may prompt a more robust immune response than messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, like the Pfizer vaccine, according to Caldera.

With each new vaccine that is developed, we have the potential to deliver greater protection, he said. If we discover recombinant vaccines can induce a robust immune response protection for an entire respiratory virus season with a single dose, this would make them a better alternative to mRNA vaccines.

The trial takes place at University Hospital in Madison. Participants will receive the Novavax vaccine and have their blood drawn three times, once prior to vaccination, once 30 days after vaccination and once six months after vaccination. Researchers will assess immune system response after vaccination by evaluating levels of antibodies and T-cells. The cost of the vaccination is covered by the trial.

The study is run by the UW Clinical Trials Institute and funded by Novavax.

If you are interested in participating in the study and have IBD, email gihcro@medicine.wisc.edu or call (608) 262-5405. If you have had a solid organ transplant, please email yli2@clinicaltrials.wisc.edu or call (608) 263-3439.

Go here to see the original:

New UW study examines COVID-19 vaccines in people with weakened immune systems - University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

Updated COVID vaccine administered to one in eight Minnesotans – MPR News

November 19, 2023

With Thanksgiving less than a week away, we want to get you the latest COVID-19 data, starting with an update on vaccinations in Minnesota.

As of Nov. 13, roughly 720,000 doses of the recently available updated COVID-19 vaccine have been administered in Minnesota, accounting for just over 13 percent of the population.

In other vaccine news, a recent study from the State Health Access Data Assistance Center sheds new light on Minnesotas initial efforts to vaccinate its population against COVID-19, through 2022.

Notably, disparities existed across age, race and ethnicity in both the overall vaccination rates of population subgroups and how quickly they reached a threshold of 50 percent fully vaccinated.

MPR News is supported by Members. Gifts from individuals power everything you find here. Make a gift of any amount today to become a Member!

Due to public health policy prioritizing vaccination for older populations, Minnesotans over the age of 65 had higher rates of vaccination by the end of 2022 (98 percent) compared to younger populations in the state.

And they reached a 50 percent threshold of vaccination in only three months; it took younger adults eight months to reach that halfway threshold.

Clear disparities existed when looking at vaccine data by race and ethnicity. Because Minnesotas white population skews older, prioritizing older populations meant that white Minnesotans reached 50 percent fully vaccinated in six months, earlier than other racial and ethnic groups except Asian and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Minnesotans, who also reached the 50 percent threshold in six months.

It took Black and Latino Minnesotans twice as long to reach 50 percent fully vaccinated, and Minnesotas American Indian and Alaska Native population took 15 months to reach that threshold.

Among young adults, Minnesotas American Indian population had not achieved the 50 percent threshold by the end of 2022, taking more than 24 months to reach that mark.

Asian young adults in Minnesota were fully vaccinated the fastest with half vaccinated after only five months. Black, white and Latino young adults took nine, 10 and 11 months, respectively.

A new Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that nationally half of all adults will likely get the updated COVID-19 vaccine, but the survey also reveals racial disparities when it comes to those who plan on getting vaccinated in this case, however, the disparities are reversed, with fewer white Americans indicating they will pursue getting vaccinated than either Black or Latino Americans.

Majorities of Black adults, 59 percent, and Hispanic or Latino adults, 60 percent, have been vaccinated or plan to be.

Less than half of white adults, 42 percent, indicated they have been vaccinated or plan to be. Just twenty percent of white Republican adults plan to get the vaccine.

If youre looking to get vaccinated, use this finder to locate services near you.

The latest data on the three primary respiratory viruses COVID-19, influenza and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) in Twin Cities Metro shows that all three continue to track well below the levels seen at this time last year, at least in terms of hospitalizations.

Looking at flu in other recent years, however, shows just how much earlier last years flu season was in comparison. So, while flu is well below where it was last year, its ramping up earlier than the last pre-COVID fall flu season (2019-2020). And, just because it isnt as high as this time last year, doesnt mean it will necessarily be a milder flu season.

This year's flu season is off to slower start than last year, but is taking off earlier than the 2019-2020 season. MMWR Week indicates the week number starting from the first of the calendar and equates roughly to early October.

Focusing on COVID-19, preliminary data through Nov. 7 shows hospitalizations ticking up again, following a drop in the prior week.

(This graph uses a Department of Health dataset that is statewide and has slightly more recent data available than in the Twin Cities three-viruses graph above.)

Since May, COVID deaths have stayed below the weekly averages of last year except for a brief stint in mid-October, which was after several months of increasing hospitalizations. COVID-19-related deaths are unfortunately still occurring, but the numbers remain far below what we saw in 2020 and 2021.

For most of the year, there have been fewer COVID deaths than in 2022, and deaths are well below 2020 and 2021 rates.

David Montgomery

The latest statewide wastewater data shows varying increases in COVID-19 levels throughout Minnesota. COVID-19 levels increased roughly 15 percent statewide when comparing the most recent week, Nov. 8, to one week earlier.

This statewide increase reflects increases in six of the seven regions in the University of Minnesotas Wastewater Surveillance Study, from an increase of roughly four percent in the Twin Cities Metro to 46 percent in the studys South Central region.

This weekly increase statewide corresponds to a monthly increase of 23 percent, as of Nov. 8.

The studys North West region was the only one to see a weekly decline.

Even with these recent increases in COVID wastewater levels, the levels remain below where they were last spring.

As a final reminder for those preparing for the upcoming holidays, in addition to taking advantage of flu and COVID-19 vaccines, as well as RSV vaccines for infants and those age 60 or older, both the state of Minnesota and the federal government are still offering free at home COVID-19 tests.

More here:

Updated COVID vaccine administered to one in eight Minnesotans - MPR News

U.S. data underscore benefits of chickenpox vaccination – The Hindu

November 19, 2023

On November 14, the U.K. governmentannouncedthat theJoint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) had recommended a vaccine against chickenpox (varicella) should be added to routine childhood immunisation programme. The vaccine is to be offered to all children in two doses, at 12 and 18 months of age. A final decision to introduce the vaccine has not been taken yet.

(For top health news of the day,subscribeto our newsletter Health Matters)

JCVIs recommendation comes nearly three decades after theU.S. introduced it in 1996, and a body of evidence emphasising the benefits of varicella vaccination. Whilechickenpox in children is most often relatively mild, some can develop complications, including bacterial infections, and in rare cases can cause encephalitis, lung inflammation, and even stroke; it can also rarely cause deaths.

Even when thedisease clears, the virus stays dormant in the body and can get reactivated to cause herpes zoster (shingles), especially in adults.Exposure to the virus through children with chickenpox was expected to boost the immunity in adults and thus reduce the risk of shingles.It was theorised that vaccination of children will lead to loss of natural immunity boosting in adults, thus leading to significant increase in shingles cases. This was one of the reasons why routine administration of the vaccine in children did not begin in the U.K. earlier.

Unlike in children, chickenpox can be severe in adults. Thesecond reasonfor the U.K. not introducing varicella vaccination earlier was due to the worry that unvaccinated children will become more susceptible to getting chickenpox as adults, leading to severe infection or a secondary complication. Ironically, diseases like measles and rubella are more severe in adults than in children. Yet, children are routinely vaccinated leaving unvaccinated children at great risk of severe infection as adults.

Evidence did not support the assumption of increased shingles in adults in countries that have introduced chickenpox vaccination. While a2019 papershowed that varicella vaccination did not increase shingles incidence in adults, another studypublished in 2020found that 10-20 years after adults were exposed to infected children, the protective effect against shingles was just 27%. A2022 paperbased on 25 years of data (1995-2019) from the U.S. showed a sharp drop in the incidenceof chickenpox and shingles in children.In adults, shingles cases did not increase as feared. Rather, the rate of shingles in adults is expected to decline as vaccinated children become old, the study says. Unpublished results from a modelling study by the University of Cambridge found that the duration of protection from shingles was not 20 years as assumed but likely to be around three years, JCVIsaid on November 14.

Since its introduction in the U.S., the vaccinehas preventedover 91 million chickenpox cases, 2,38,000 hospitalisations, and almost 2,000 deaths. Thereturn on investmentwith net societal savings has been over $23 billion.

The evidence in favour of the chickenpox vaccine has been amply clear for a while. Once again, JCVI seems to have followed an ideology of infection being beneficial for children and at population level, Dr. Deepti Gurdasani, a clinical epidemiologist at the Queen Mary University of London toldThe Hinduby email. The thinking behind not recommending the vaccine prior to now was that this may lead to an increase in shingles incidence because of lack of boosting of the population by infected children. This has not come to pass. In fact, vaccination has been associated with a lower chance of reactivation and shingles compared to infection so far.

As per an unpublished study by the University of Bristol, complications from severe varicella were common, costly and placed a burden on health services. Uncomplicated varicella can also cause hospitalisation in very young children. The JCVI statement admits that thetrue extent of hospitalisation due to varicella was underestimated. The reason: hospitalisations were frequently due to secondary complicationsarising from infection and also childhood stroke, which were not always recorded.

There are several hundreds of thousands of cases of varicella each year in the U.K., most happening in under five-year-olds. While death is rare, hospitalisations do occur, with up to 4,000 admissions per year and 6.8 million in hospitalisation costs, and much greater costs associated with children being ill, Dr. Gurdasani says. On an economic level, chickenpox vaccination is a no-brainer. This has been clear for a really long time, as have the health benefits, which really begs the question why the JCVI has been so behind on this, and what the costs of these delays in introducing vaccination have been on both health and economy.It is unfortunate that decisions are often made on flawed thinking rather than evidence.

India is yet to include varicella vaccine in the universal immunisation programme. As per the NFHS-5 data for childhood vaccination, the coverage for severe diseases such as diphtheria and pertussis has only reached 76.6%. Expanding this program remains an immediate priority, says Dr. Rajeev Jayadevan, Member, Public Health Advisory Panel, Kerala State IMA. The actual disease burden of chickenpox and shingles, and hospitalisation costs in India are not known. As a result, the cost-benefit analysis of varicella vaccination has not been done. Published studies from Asia estimate 5 cases of shingles per 1,000 person-years, the risk increasing to 7.4-13.8 per 1,000 person-years in people over 50 years, Dr. Jayadevan says. Experts at the Indian Academy of Pediatrics believe the risk of shingles may be lower.

Follow this link:

U.S. data underscore benefits of chickenpox vaccination - The Hindu

Researchers boost vaccines and immunotherapies with machine learning to drive more effective treatments – Phys.org

November 19, 2023

This article has been reviewed according to ScienceX's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

proofread

close

Small molecules called immunomodulators can help create more effective vaccines and stronger immunotherapies to treat cancer.

But finding the molecules that instigate the right immune response is difficult the number of drug-like small molecules has been estimated to be 1060, much higher than the number of stars in the visible universe.

In a potential first for the field of vaccine design, machine learning guided the discovery of new immune pathway-enhancing molecules and found one particular small molecule that could outperform the best immunomodulators on the market. The results are published in the journal Chemical Science.

"We used artificial intelligence methods to guide a search of a huge chemical space," said Prof. Aaron Esser-Kahn, co-author of the paper who led the experiments. "In doing so, we found molecules with record-level performance that no human would have suggested we try. We're excited to share the blueprint for this process."

"Machine learning is used heavily in drug design, but it doesn't appear to have been previously used in this manner for immunomodulator discovery," said Prof. Andrew Ferguson, who led the machine learning. "It's a nice example of transferring tools from one field to another."

Immunomodulators work by changing the signaling activity of innate immune pathways within the body. In particular, the NF-B pathway plays a role in inflammation and immune activation, while the IRF pathway is essential in antiviral response.

Earlier this year, the PME team conducted a high-throughput screen that looked at 40,000 combinations of molecules to see if any affected these pathways. They then tested the top candidates, finding that when those molecules were added to adjuvantsingredients that help boost the immune response in vaccinesthe molecules increased antibody response and reduced inflammation.

To find more candidates, the team used these results combined with a library of nearly 140,000 commercially available small molecules to guide an iterative computational and experimental process.

Graduate student Yifeng (Oliver) Tang used a machine learning technique called active learning, which blends both exploration and exploitation to efficiently navigate the experimental screening through molecular space. This approach learns from the data previously collected and finds potential high-performing molecules to be tested experimentally while also pointing out areas that have been under-explored and may contain some valuable candidates.

The process was iterative; the model pointed out potential good candidates or areas in which it needed more information, and the team conducted a high-throughput analysis of those molecules and then fed the data back into the active learning algorithm.

close

After four cycles and ultimately sampling only about 2% of the librarythe team found high-performing small molecules that had never been found before. These top-performing candidates improved NF-B activity 110%, elevated IRF activity by 83%, and suppressed NF-B activity by 128%.

One molecule induced a three-fold enhancement of IFN- production when delivered with what's called a STING (stimulator of interferon genes) agonist. STING agonists promote stronger immune responses within tumors and are a promising treatment for cancer.

"The challenge with STING has been that you can't get enough immune activity in the tumor, or you have off-target activity," Esser-Kahn said. "The molecule we found outperformed the best published molecules by 20 percent."

They also found several "generalists"immunomodulators capable of modifying pathways when co-delivered with agonists, chemicals that activate cellular receptors to produce a biological response. These small molecules could ultimately be used in vaccines more broadly.

"These generalists could be good across all vaccines and therefore could be easier to bring to market," Ferguson said. "That's quite exciting, that one molecule could play a multifaceted role."

To better understand the molecules found by machine learning, the team also identified common chemical features of the molecules that promoted desirable behaviors. "That allows us to focus on molecules that have these characteristics, or rationally engineer new molecules with these chemical groups," Ferguson said.

The team expects to continue this process to search for more molecules and hope others in the field will share datasets to make the search even more fruitful. They hope to screen molecules for more specific immune activity, like activating certain T-cells, or find a combination of molecules that gives them better control of the immune response.

"Ultimately, we want to find molecules that can treat disease," Esser-Kahn said.

A team from the Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) at The University of Chicago tackled the problem by using machine learning to guide high-throughput experimental screening of this vast search space.

More information: Yifeng Tang et al, Data-driven discovery of innate immunomodulators via machine learning-guided high throughput screening, Chemical Science (2023). DOI: 10.1039/D3SC03613H

Journal information: Chemical Science

Read more:

Researchers boost vaccines and immunotherapies with machine learning to drive more effective treatments - Phys.org

Page 141«..1020..140141142143..150160..»