Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Archives › Smallpox › "Safer Smallpox Vaccines In Works," from Washington Post
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Safer Smallpox Vaccines In Works," from Washington Post  

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Thought this article would probably be of interest to people here...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111301006.html

Quote:


Safer Smallpox Vaccines In Works
U.S. Prepares for Bioterror Attack

By Justin Gillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 14, 2005; Page A01

New vaccine technologies are emerging that offer a fresh chance to devise a strategy against smallpox, the most fearsome potential weapon in the bioterror arsenal.

Two companies are reporting rapid progress in developing a new vaccine designed to be safer than the standard one, and a third company, with no government support, is developing yet another new vaccine. That vaccine could offer significant advantages if terrorists were to unleash the smallpox germ in several cities at once, requiring the vaccination of huge numbers of people.


The government stumbled badly in its campaign after Sept. 11, 2001, to vaccinate health care workers who would respond to a smallpox attack. It has since spent millions to fund development of a new, safer vaccine and has already decided to order enough to protect at least 10 million people. It could buy far more if money becomes available.

Progress on safer vaccines is a success for U.S. policymakers, but it also confronts them with vexing new questions about which vaccines to buy, how many doses to buy, whether to resume a failed program to inoculate some people in advance of an attack and how to deploy the vaccines rapidly if smallpox is unleashed by terrorists.

The government is preparing to tackle the strategic questions over the next few months. "Right at the present moment, we're setting up a committee to really look at this with a very hard eye," said D.A. Henderson, a Baltimore doctor who advises the government and who is often called the world's premier expert on smallpox. "There are major changes that have occurred that force us to reexamine what we're going to do."

After the terrorist and anthrax attacks of late 2001, concern about the unrelated smallpox virus reached a fever pitch. Anthrax is deadly, but it does not spread from person to person; smallpox does, and an attack could theoretically kill millions. For a population of nearly 300 million, the country had only 15 million doses of vaccine.

Since then, the government has pulled off a huge feat by stockpiling enough vaccine for every American, but the campaign stalled after President Bush announced a plan to inoculate as many 10.5 million doctors, nurses, police, firefighters and other workers ahead of time so they could respond to an attack.

Many health workers, not fully convinced of the threat and worried about the safety of the standard vaccine, refused inoculation. In the end, only 40,000 health workers were vaccinated. After unexpected heart problems emerged in some vaccine recipients, plans to offer shots to the public were shelved. Early this year, an expert panel excoriated the administration for what it described as poor strategy and communication in devising the smallpox plan.

Now, experts contend, the development of safer vaccines offers a chance to start over, though in some ways the issue of what to do has only grown more complicated. The Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged, for instance, that with no smallpox cases in the world, it can never be certain how the new vaccines would perform in an epidemic. It will have to base its plans on rough information, including animal tests.

"You cannot answer all the questions -- it's not possible," said Noreen A. Hynes, head of an office that helps coordinate development of bioterror countermeasures at HHS.

Smallpox killed hundreds of millions of people in recorded history, more than any other infectious disease. It was eradicated in 1977 after a worldwide campaign that Henderson led. Routine vaccination stopped. But by the late 1990s, doctors realized that their very success against the disease had turned it into a potentially potent weapon.

Studies have suggested that a quarter of the U.S. population has some lingering immunity from childhood smallpox vaccination, but the rest -- 223 million people -- are believed vulnerable. Virtually no one younger than 37 has been vaccinated.

The smallpox virus resides in only two official repositories, in the United States and Russia, but there are fears that some countries kept hidden stocks and that terrorists or rogue states could get their hands on the germ.

The standard vaccine is relatively dangerous compared with most modern vaccines and was killing several babies a year in the United States when vaccination stopped in 1972. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Bethesda, called the vaccine "the gold standard" given its track record of eradicating smallpox. "Unfortunately, it's a gold standard that has some significant side effects -- rare but significant," he said.


Some groups are at particular risk of vaccine complications: infants, pregnant women, cancer survivors, AIDS patients, organ-transplant recipients, anyone who has ever had the skin disease eczema and some others. These people would be discouraged from receiving the standard vaccine under most circumstances, and so would anyone living in a household with them -- a large swath of the population. It was this concern that prompted the push for safer vaccines.

All smallpox vaccines contain a weakened virus, called vaccinia virus, that is closely related to smallpox but much less likely to cause illness. The virus in the standard vaccine reproduces in the body, which elicits a powerful immune response that can ward off later smallpox infection, but it does sicken some people, causing a catastrophic brain infection in a few cases. Another, unexpected side effect turned up when the government sought to vaccinate medical personnel in 2003: heart inflammation in adults who had not previously been vaccinated. It is unclear how serious a problem that would be if the vaccine were used widely.

One newer type of vaccine, the one that has been the focus of most publicly funded research, essentially trades potency for safety. This vaccine is known as modified vaccinia Ankara, or MVA. A version was first developed in Germany in the 1970s; it does not reproduce in the body and appears less likely to cause illness in vulnerable people.

But because it is weaker, people need a higher dose and may need two shots several weeks apart for full protection. That could limit the usefulness of the vaccine in an emergency and may constitute an argument for using it ahead of time in some people.

There is also evidence that the side effects of the standard vaccine in healthy people could be ameliorated if they got a shot of MVA a few weeks before a regular inoculation. Potentially, such a strategy could alleviate some safety concerns that prompted many doctors and nurses to refuse smallpox vaccination.

Two companies -- Acambis PLC, with joint headquarters in Cambridge, England, and Cambridge, Mass., and Bavarian Nordic A/S, with headquarters in Kvistgard, Denmark -- have received federal grants to develop MVA, and they are battling each other to supply it to the government. Their vaccines have undergone extensive tests, though full side effects are not known yet.

Health and Human Services has issued bidding documents asking for at least 20 million doses of MVA -- enough for a minimum of 10 million people -- and has said it may eventually buy an additional 60 million doses. The final decision may depend in part on price. The Acambis and Bavarian Nordic proposals are not yet public, but most experts think MVA will cost 10 to 20 times as much as the standard vaccine, which runs about $3 per dose.

Bavarian Nordic, seeking an expanded market, has argued that the government should consider replacing its entire vaccine stockpile with the newer product, a decision that could cost billions of dollars.

"What would the public say if smallpox is released, 20 million people get the safe vaccine, and everyone else gets the unsafe vaccine?" said Paul Chaplin, executive vice president for research at Bavarian Nordic. "Which line would you and your family like to be in?"

The government must consider yet another factor. With no public funds, VaxGen Inc. of Brisbane, Calif., is developing a Japanese vaccine that reproduces in the body, and thus elicits strong immunity with one dose, but appears less likely to cause life-threatening brain infections in children than the standard vaccine.

The company has already completed some human research. "We are generating the data to show the product is intrinsically safe," said Lance K. Gordon, president and chief executive of VaxGen.

VaxGen's product is expected to be far cheaper than MVA and, as a one-dose vaccine, potentially more useful in an emergency. But buying a significant amount would further complicate the strategic issues about how to use the various vaccines.

It is expected to be at least a year or two before significant quantities of new vaccine arrive in federal stockpiles. Experts said that gives the government time to devise a new strategy and to consult with the state health departments and medical personnel that resisted the government's original vaccination plan.

"I think the medical community has to take a serious look at this," said Michael T. Osterholm, head of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "Anybody who thinks smallpox is off the table also doesn't think a single jet can bring down a skyscraper."

post #2 of 29
The smallpox virus resides in only two official repositories, in the United States and Russia, but there are fears that some countries kept hidden stocks and that terrorists or rogue states could get their hands on the germ.

Jeez, I felt like I was watching a James Bond movie for a second there.

No doubt, once the "safer" vaccines are approved, we will once again be in the midst of a potential smallpox epidemic. I predict the smallpox vaccines will be approved for use once the bird flu pandemic becomes the pandemic that never was.
post #3 of 29
What do they mean by safer s .

After all I have the really old adverts for the vaccine which said they were pure and absolutely safe! (Of course, we know they weren't but never mind...)

How much safer do you need to be?
post #4 of 29
How much safer?

Safe enough to fool the masses. They are going to have to do a lot of marketing in order to help people to forget their first failed "campaign." Safety is going to be a major factor. That, and trying to convince everyone some rogue country is going to unleash smallpox everywhere.

One newer type of vaccine, the one that has been the focus of most publicly funded research, essentially trades potency for safety. This vaccine is known as modified vaccinia Ankara, or MVA. A version was first developed in Germany in the 1970s; it does not reproduce in the body and appears less likely to cause illness in vulnerable people.

Hmmm, this sounds interesting.
post #5 of 29
Interesting.... meaning?
post #6 of 29
Meaning, I have no idea what they mean!

This is some info on the trial (or one of them) on this "safer" vaccine:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/show/NCT00079820

Take a look at the age criteria.
post #7 of 29
And the exclusion criteria

. . . is this a friggin joke?
post #8 of 29
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6761893.html

This link goes into great detail - most of which I cannot understand, but the underlying premise seems to be that it's "not capable of reproductive replication" and this somehow makes it safer.
post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland
And the exclusion criteria

. . . is this a friggin joke?
No. This is standard. You exclude all these people right?
Quote:
Any of the following exclusion criteria are met, the subject is NOT eligible.

military service prior to 1989 or after December 13th, 2002.
history of previous smallpox vaccination
known/suspected history of immunodeficiency, or with current radiation treatment or use of immunosuppressive or anti-neoplastic drugs.
subjects with a household member or intimate contact with the same conditions listed above.
known or suspected impairment of other immunologic function.
malignancy, including squamous cell or basal cell skin cancer at vaccination site
active autoimmune disease.
subjects with known eye diseases or other conditions that require the use of corticosteroid eye drops.
known/history of cardiac disease.
subjects who have been diagnosed with 3 or more of the following risk factors for ischemic coronary disease: a) high blood pressure b) elevated blood cholesterol levels c) diabetes or high blood sugar d) first degree relative (for example, mother, father, brother, or sister) who had a heart condition before the age of 50 e) smoke cigarettes
subjects with a history of palpitations or abnormalities of cardiac rhythm.
subjects with odd ECG patterns
subjects with a ten percent or greater risk of developing a myocardial infarction or coronary death within the next 10 years.
positive or elevated creatinine kinase, CK-MB, or Troponin I laboratory test levels.
abnormalities of clinical laboratory assessments.
past history or current diagnosis of chronic renal disease, adverse reactions to drugs characterized by renal impairment, a serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL, or presence of 1+ protein in urinalysis at screening and a calculated creatinine clearance of not less than 80 mL/min.
current diagnosis or past history of eczema.
subjects with a household member or intimate contact with the same conditions listed above.
presence of acute, chronic, or exfoliative skin conditions, open wounds, or burns.
history of keloid formation.
known allergies to MVA or to any known components (Neomycin, Gentamycin) of the vaccine.
known allergy to eggs or egg products.
known allergies to any component of the Dryvax® vaccine. Antibiotics in Dryvax® include neomycin, streptomycin, chlortetracycline, and polymixin B.
known allergies to any known component of the Dryvax® diluent (i.e., glycerin and phenol).
known allergies to any known component of VIG, (i.e., thimerosal or previous allergic reaction to immunoglobulins).
known allergies to cidofovir or sulphur containing drugs, including probenecid, trimethoprim, and sulfonamide antibiotics.
transfusion of blood or treatment with any blood product, including intramuscular or intravenous serum globulin within 6 months of the screening visit.
positive serology result for HIV, hepatitis B surface antigen, or hepatitis C.
current diagnosis or history within six months of the screening visit of drug or alcohol abuse disorders.
significant acute or chronic psychiatric illness.
female subjects with a positive serum pregnancy test result
subjects with a household member or direct contact with someone who is pregnant or lactating.
temperature or acute illness within 3 days prior to vaccination
inoculation with an inactivated vaccine with 14 days of Day 0 or with a live attenuated vaccine within 30 days of Day 0.
subjects who have participated in another investigational drug or vaccine trial within 30 days of Day 0.
subjects who are planning on donating blood or organs within 30 days of vaccination.
Then when the vaccine is pronounced safe, you say its okay ~ and therefore safe ~ to give to all the groups you specifically excluded in the first place.

It's called science, doncha know.
post #10 of 29
Makes perfect sense MT!

Oh, ok - now this is interesting. I understand "household member", but how do they define "direct contact?"

subjects with a household member or direct contact with someone who is pregnant or lactating.
post #11 of 29
Anyone? Please feel free to dissect some or all these exclusions.
post #12 of 29
deleted coz I get it now, but need to think it through more. It has huge implications.
post #13 of 29
Frankly to me, this is one scary vaccine. If at such low concentrations is provokes such a profound immune reaction that it can be used as an adjuvant... what else could it do?

SAB!
post #14 of 29
They're safe enough to not cause obvious illness in those who are poisoned by them.
post #15 of 29
This is a little surprising. Is it b/c it's a live vax?

temperature or acute illness within 3 days prior to vaccination
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland
Take a look at the age criteria.
OK, now I know why the age criteria was limited. Persons who have been previously immunized with smallpox are not able to get the vaccine.
post #17 of 29
But that's what they do with all vaccine trials Long Island.

It's standard protocol.

Eliminate most of those who will perhaps have "confounding factors" so as to "confuse" a vaccine trial, then proceed to vaccinate everyone afterwards, coz the vaccine was SAFE you know...
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland
OK, now I know why the age criteria was limited. Persons who have been previously immunized with smallpox are not able to get the vaccine.
Why not?

Immunity only lasts a max of three years.
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara
Frankly to me, this is one scary vaccine. If at such low concentrations is provokes such a profound immune reaction that it can be used as an adjuvant... what else could it do?
SAB!
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland
This is a little surprising. Is it b/c it's a live vax?

temperature or acute illness within 3 days prior to vaccination
No. Again, that's standard protocol, because the person might be coming down with something bad, and if they died it might be blamed on the vaccine if there was no definable cause.

It's called "risk management".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Smallpox
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Archives › Smallpox › "Safer Smallpox Vaccines In Works," from Washington Post