Flu is a major killer, annually resulting in over 57,000 deaths and 41 million sick people. Many strains of flue become resilient to annual vaccines. Scientists in the United States have been given a grant worth $130 million to develop a universal flu shot that will last for years.
Will such a vaccine materialize? Is it worth the investment, given that it will come at the cost of other medical research?
The flu virus changes so often that we have a new vaccine every year. It is worth the investment to try to make new vaccines because they do help prevent or lessen the effects of the flu. However, sometimes it does not work for whatever reason. Nevertheless, it is a good investment that protects society.
Dear Gulzar Shah This incentive looks like fantastic . If scientists would find a vaccination for eradicating loads of viruses for a longer time , millions of lives would be saved. thanks a lot for sharing this good news.
In my opinion, since the burden of disease is so high, it is worth the investment. Also, the research is being done by a consortium of 15 universities and the project will be completed in 7 years, the chances of success are nearly 100% and the waiting time is reasonable. Unlike research on diseases of prosperity, this will benefit poor and rich alike.
It will reduce health disparities. The initiative will also generate evidence that will benefit developing countries as well.
I think the broadly neutralizing antibodies (therapeutics antibody) are very promising against influenza.
They are lots of broadly neutralizing antibodies agains influenza virus in clinical trials.
http://humimmu.com/broadly-neutralizing-antibodies-against-influenza-a-viruses-fully-human-fi6-medi8852.html
http://humimmu.com/broadly-neutralizing-antibodies-against-influenza-a-viruses-fully-human-cr8020.html
http://humimmu.com/broadly-neutralizing-antibodies-against-influenza-a-viruses-fully-human-cr6261-diridavumab.html
http://humimmu.com/broadly-neutralizing-antibodies-against-influenza-a-viruses-fully-human-39-29-gedivumab-mhaa4549a.html
http://humimmu.com/broadly-neutralizing-antibodies-against-influenza-a-and-b-viruses-fully-human-cr9114.html
The flu virus changes so often that we have a new vaccine every year. It is worth the investment to try to make new vaccines because they do help prevent or lessen the effects of the flu. However, sometimes it does not work for whatever reason. Nevertheless, it is a good investment that protects society.
Dear Dr. Gulzar Shah
I think the global annual number of deaths from flu is much higher. Please see the screenshot from our just published book on Phytochemicals as lead compounds for New Drug Discovery. https://www.researchgate.net/project/Collaborative-Book-Project-on-Phytochemistry-Molecular-Biology-Biochemistry-Nutrition-Toxicology/update/5d7d02bccfe4a7968dcb4bf4
It takes on average 10-12 years of protocols to have a new drug approved. So with $130 million, I think more funds will be needed at a later stage if the consortium succeeds in designing a vaccine.
Regards,
Egbuna
This a very big problem for meat lovers. Most India people get sick when they smell meat.
90% Indian people are vegetarian and meat poison for them. India has the most cows in the world. We must be happy and what would happen if they eat meat? Then meat 20 times more expensive and more hunger in this earth.
Yes, it is worth it because the disease is widespread in the world and there is no human being infected at least once a year, and therefore the production of vaccine for a period of one month or one year can be a successful investment project.
The flu kills massive amounts of children, adults, and the elderly every year. Any vaccine that can bring that number down is worth the investment. It might take away from other medical research but if we were to stop the flu like we have with polio then it is worth it. Small advancements are still advancements.
Thank you all colleagues for your valuable replies to this discussion post.
There certainly are intelligent people with significant expertise who believe it is possible to make a universal influenza vaccine, or at least one that will cover a broad number of strains of the virus. The US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has a strategy for developing such a vaccine. See: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/universal-influenza-vaccine-research
Although when it is "worth it" is a matter of opinion, when one considers the annual costs of influenza and the effects of the disease worldwide, I think it is hard to escape the judgment that it is worth trying to develop a universal vaccine.
I am doing some work with a group of scientists who are well down the road to a universal influenza vaccine, it has already been successful in human virus challenge trials and just needs a large scale field trial. This is vitally important work because not only does our approach to seasonal influenza lead to poor response in some years, but also we have no meaningful strategy for pandemic influenza. We must continue to pursue universal vaccines because they will save many, many lives.
The gold standard should be net costs per QALY which would enable us to evaluate the. New vaccine against other health interventions......the possibility of the vaccination being cost-effective or even cost-saving is likely to be far far far higher if a broad strain vaccine can be developed as suggested by prof shoebbaum. THAN a narrow strain vaccine which would only prevent a small percent of cases.
Of course, it will not only be a good investment, but it will be a major advancement with significant impact on public health. But this has been going for many years with not much convincing science and data. A lot of people made their careers on this hot topic without any success and gaining a lot of funding. I would like to have this succeed.
A number of scientists have been working on HIV vaccine for many years without success, but the efforts and investment in the pursuit of HIV vaccine have progressed the basic science and our understanding of the immune system. I have not seen much progressing coming out of universal flu vaccine efforts despite with massive funding.
Vaccines of any kind are worth the investment. We will never get anywhere without trying.
Not all vaccines are worth the investment in that their costs per QALY could be enourmous ---- eg: vaccinations against varicella (which could subsequently cause shingles epidemics)….
Although my understanding is that varicella vaccines also offer protection against shingles rather than causing shingles epidemics (See: https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/shingles/news/20190610/chickenpox-vaccine-shields-against-shingles-too#1 ), I agree with Dr. Ginsberg that it is possible to develop a vaccine that might cost so much that it was not cost-effective. Nonetheless, epidemic influenza is an expensive disease and influenza pandemics not only are expensive but cause tremendous disruption in a society when they occur. Thus, a universal flu vaccine, though it might have significant development costs, is likely, assuming it does not cost an exhorbitant amount to manufacture and assuming it protects for multiple years, to be highly cost-effective over time.
By searching in PubMed, I can find only one recent article by WJ Edmunds related to varicella vaccine. It has just been published and does not seem to indicate that there will be an epidemic of zoster among recipients of VZV in Hong Kong ( Article Varicella vaccine dose depended effectiveness and waning amo...
) . In a much earlier article in JAMA (2002) (Article Varicella Vaccine and Shingles
) that involves WJ Edmunds as an author, it is stated that in the early experience using varicella vaccine in England it is not known what the effect will be on zoster. If you are aware of a definitive study involving Edmunds as an author, then please share the reference. In the meantime, I will continue to think that the article in Pediatrics this past June referred to in the link that I shared in my previous post, is definitive.
The Journal of the American Medical Association has published a new article online today about progress in developing a universal flu vaccine.
I do not believe that I have rights to upload this article. If you have online access to JAMA, you can find it at: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2755344?guestAccessKey=fc77dab3-7508-40e3-9974-4ecded62e367
The flu kills a lot of people every year. If there is a possibility to make a universal vaccine then we should try our best to make it reality.
Childless and grand childrenless adults had far higher shingles rates because they did not have the opportunity of having their immune systems boosted by being in contact with children with varicella.....the vaccine reduces this mode of providing immunity against shingles.
Adults have another way of being protected against shingles, receiving two doses of the current zoster/shingles vaccine. It is recommended even if one had chickenpox as a child.
Yes pharma creates an epidemic and then comes out with a vaccine to counteract the epidemic!!
I'm sorry, Dr. Ginsberg, but I do not buy that pharma, and I have no incentive to support them, "creates an epidemic and then comes out with a vaccine to counteract" it. Before there was a varicella or zoster vaccine, the incidence of zoster in persons age 50+ was about 1 percent per year. With a life expectancy of approximately 80 years, that meant that about 30 percent of people who got to age 50 would have zoster in their lifetime. Indeed, current estimates are still in that ballpark. You have not presented good evidence that pharma has created an epidemic with varicella vaccine, and I have given some evidence that varicella vaccine should be protective. The current zoster vaccine is useful for persons like me who are seniors, who had varicella, not the vaccine, when we were young, and who are at risk of being in that 30% who will, without vaccine, develop zoster in our lifetimes.
I am not anti vaccinations per se having worked for the WHO on the pneumococcal and HPV vaccinations. But the institution of the varicella vaccination will increase the incidence of shingles on the over 50s which in turn will increase the cost-effectiveness of the shingles vaccination and subsequently it's acceptable price/cost.
RE "the institution of the varicella vaccination will increase the incidence of shingles on the over 50s which in turn will increase the cost-effectiveness of the shingles vaccination and subsequently it's acceptable price/cost": You are entitled to your opinion about persons over 50, but there is no evidence at this time to support it; and there is evidence to indicate that in younger persons varicella vaccine decreases the incidence of zoster.
Vaccines will always be worth the investment. Anything that keeps people from getting sick and possibly dying from that sickness is worth that money used to make it.
Universal vaccination to prevent flu is not a realistic approach and it would be a 'mission which is impossible. It is better to vaccinate them who has more chances of getting flu.
with social distancing -- flu has decreased significantly in most countries -- rendering universal vaccinations even less cost-effective
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Public Health