Tag: Moderna

Categories : Cancer GeneticsTags :

mRNA Technology Restores Tumour Suppressor Protein in Ovarian Cancer

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Sangharsh Lohakare on Unsplash

Using mRNA technology developed and matured for certain COVID vaccines, researchers have successfully restored the tumour-suppressing p53 protein in mouse models of advanced human ovarian cancer, significantly extending their survival. They report their results in Cancer Communications.

Ovarian cancer is often only detected at an advanced stage and metastases have already formed — usually in the intestines, abdomen or lymph nodes. At such a late stage, only 20 to 30% of all those affected survive the next five years. “Unfortunately, this situation has hardly changed at all over the past two decades,” says Professor Klaus Strebhardt, Director of the Department of Molecular Gynecology and Obstetrics at University Hospital Frankfurt.

In 96% of all ovarian cancer (high-grade) patients, the tumour suppressor gene p53 has mutated and is now non-functional. The gene contains the building instructions for an important protein that normally recognises damage in each cell’s DNA. It then prevents these abnormal cells from proliferating and activates repair mechanisms that rectify the damage.

If this fails, it induces cell death. “In this way, p53 is very effective in preventing carcinogenesis,” explains Strebhardt. “But when it is mutated, this protective mechanism is eradicated.”

If a cell wants to produce a certain protein, it first makes a transcript of the gene containing the building instructions for it. Such transcripts are called mRNAs. In women with ovarian cancer, the p53 mRNAs are just as defective as the gene from which they were copied.

“We produced an mRNA in the laboratory that contained the blueprint for a normal, non-mutated p53 protein,” says Dr Monika Raab from the Department of Molecular Gynecology and Obstetrics, who conducted many of the key experiments in the study.

“We packed it into small lipid vesicles, known as liposomes, and then tested them first in cultures of various human cancer cell lines. The cells used the artificial mRNA to produce functional p53 protein.”

In the next step, the scientists cultivated ovarian tumours – organoids – from patient cells sourced by the team led by Professor Sven Becker, Director of the Women’s Clinic at University Hospital Frankfurt.

After treatment with the artificial mRNA, the organoids shrank and began to die.

To test whether the artificial mRNA is also effective in organisms and can combat metastases in the abdomen, the researchers implanted human ovarian tumour cells into the ovaries of mice and injected the mRNA liposomes into the animals some time later.

The result was very convincing, says Strebhardt: “With the help of the artificial mRNA, cells in the animals treated produced large quantities of the functional p53 protein, and as a result both the tumours in the ovaries and the metastases disappeared almost completely.”

That the method was so successful is partly due to recent advances in mRNA technology: Normally, mRNA transcripts are very sensitive and degraded by cells within minutes.

However, it is meanwhile possible to prevent this by specifically modifying the molecules.

This extends their lifespan substantially, in this study to up to two weeks.

In addition, the chemical composition of the artificial mRNA is slightly different to that of its natural counterpart.

This prevents the immune system from intervening after the molecule has been injected and from triggering inflammatory responses.

In 2023, the Hungarian scientist Katalin Karikó and her American colleague Drew Weissman were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this discovery.

“Thanks to the development of mRNA vaccines such as those of BioNTech and Moderna, which went into action during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we now also know how to make the molecules even more effective,” explains Strebhardt.

Strebhardt, Raab and Becker are now looking for partners to join the next step of the translational project: testing on patients with ovarian cancer. “What is crucial now is the question of whether we can implement the concept and the results in clinical reality and use our method to help cancer patients,” says Strebhardt. The latest results make him very optimistic that the tide could finally turn in the treatment of ovarian carcinomas. “p53 mRNA is not a normal therapeutic that targets a specific weak point in cancer cells. Instead, we are repairing a natural mechanism that the body normally uses very effectively to suppress carcinogenesis. This is a completely different quality of cancer therapy.”

Source: Goethe University Frankfurt

Categories : COVIDTags :

mRNA Vaccines Perform Better against Variants of Concern

On By ModernMedia
Image from Pixabay

A comparison of vaccinations has demonstrated that mRNA vaccines perform better against variants of concern (VOCs) than viral vector vaccines. Although they all effectively prevent severe disease by VOCs, the research published in PLOS Medicine suggests that people receiving a viral vector vaccine are more vulnerable to infection by new variants.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are mRNA vaccines, which deliver genetic code to the bodies’ cells, whereas Oxford/AstraZeneca and J&J are viral vector vaccines which uses a modified virus to deliver instructions. J&J is delivered as a single dose while the rest are administered two weeks apart.

Marit J. van Gils at the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, and colleagues, took blood samples from 165 healthcare workers, three and four weeks after first and second vaccination respectively, and for J&J at four to five and eight weeks after vaccination. Samples were collected before, and four weeks after a Pfizer-BioNTech booster.

Four weeks after the initial two doses, antibody responses to the original SARS-CoV-2 viral strain were highest in recipients of Moderna, followed closely by Pfizer-BioNTech, and were substantially lower in those who received viral vector vaccines. Tested against the VOCs Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Omicron, neutralising antibodies were higher in the mRNA recipients than the viral vector recipients. Neutralisation ability against VOCs was reduced in all vaccine groups, with the greatest reduction against Omicron. The Pfizer-BioNTech booster increased antibody responses in all groups with substantial improvement against VOCs, including Omicron.

The researchers caution that their AstraZeneca group was significantly older, because of safety concerns for the vaccine in younger age groups. As immune responses tend to weaken with age, this could affect the results. This group was also smaller because the Dutch government halted use for a period.

Source: EurekAlert!

Categories : COVIDTags :

Three Doses are Needed for Same Protection against Omicron

On By ModernMedia
Syringe injection into the upper arm
Image source: NCI on Unsplash

According to a large study published in The BMJ, mRNA vaccines are highly effective in preventing COVID hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants. However, three doses are needed to achieve similar protection against omicron that two doses provide against delta and alpha.

The results also show that, although severity of disease among patients admitted to hospital is lower with the omicron versus delta variant, patients with omicron are still at risk of critical illness and death.

In order to guide vaccination policies and development of new vaccines, it is essential to understand COVID variants and vaccine efficacy.

Early studies suggested reduced vaccine effectiveness against infection and hospital admissions for omicron compared with earlier variants, but little is known about the effectiveness of vaccines to prevent the most severe manifestations of COVID, including respiratory failure and death, for patients with infection due to the omicron variant.

To address this, the researchers assessed COVID severity in the alpha, delta, and omicron variants among hospitalised adults and compared the effectiveness of two and three doses of mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) in preventing hospital admissions related to each variant.

Their findings are based on 11 690 adults admitted to 21 hospitals across the United States between March 2021 and January 2022: 5728 cases with COVID and 5962 controls without COVID.

Patients were classified into alpha, delta or omicron based on viral gene sequencing or by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission.

Vaccine effectiveness was then calculated for each variant and variants’ disease severity was compared with the World Health Organization’s clinical progression scale.

Effectiveness of two doses of an mRNA vaccine to prevent COVID hospital admission was found to be lower for the omicron variant than alpha and delta variants (65%, 85%, and 85%, respectively), whereas three doses were found to achieve 86% effectiveness against the omicron variant, similar to two doses against the alpha and delta variants.

Among unvaccinated adults hospitalised with COVID, the delta variant was associated with the most severe disease, followed by the alpha variant and then the omicron variant.

The omicron variant was, however, associated with substantial critical illness and death, with 15% of patients admitted to hospital with the omicron variant (vaccinated and unvaccinated) progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation, and 7% dying in hospital.

Nevertheless, vaccinated patients hospitalised with COVID had significantly less sever disease than unvaccinated patients across all variants.

As an observational study, cause cannot be established, and some variant misclassification may have occurred. Changes in clinical management during the periods when the alpha, delta, and omicron variants predominated were not accounted for. These could have affected outcomes, the researchers acknowledged.

Nevertheless, this was a large study with rigorous evaluation of vaccination status and of outcomes beyond hospital admission, suggesting that the results are robust.

As such, they say that mRNA vaccines “were associated with strong protection against hospital admissions with COVID due to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants” and that vaccination against COVID including a third dose of an mRNA vaccine, “is critical for protecting populations against COVID-associated morbidity and mortality.”

They concluded: “As the COVID pandemic continues to evolve, routine monitoring of vaccine effectiveness, especially against severe disease, and surveillance programmes to identify viral variants will be essential to inform decisions about booster vaccine policies and vaccine strain updates.”

Source: EurekAlert!

Categories : COVID Immune SystemTags :

Existing COVID Vaccines Trigger Lasting T Cell Response

On By ModernMedia
Image from Pixabay

Scientists have found that four COVID vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, J&J/Janssen, and Novavax) prompt the body to make effective, long-lasting T cells against SARS-CoV-2. These T cells can recognise SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern, including Delta and Omicron.

The new study, published in Cell, showed that the vast majority of T cell responses are also still effective against Omicron, reducing the odds of illness for up to six months, regardless of vaccine.

These data come from adults who were fully vaccinated, but not yet boosted. The researchers are now investigating T cell responses in boosted individuals and people who have experienced “breakthrough” COVID cases.

The study also shows that fully vaccinated people have fewer memory B cells and neutralising antibodies against the Omicron variant. This finding is in line with initial reports of waning immunity from laboratories around the world.

Without enough neutralising antibodies, Omicron is more likely to cause a breakthrough infection, and fewer memory B cells means a slower production of more neutralising antibodies.

Co-first author Camila Coelho, PhD, said: “Our study revealed that the 15 mutations present in Omicron RBD can considerably reduce the binding capacity of memory B cells.”

Neutralising antibodies and memory B cells are only two arms of the body’s adaptive immune response. , T cells do not prevent infection, rather they patrol the body and destroy cells that are already infected, which prevents a virus from multiplying and causing severe disease.

The team believes the “second line of defence” from T cells helps explain Omicron’s reduced severity in vaccinated people. The variant also appears to infect different tissues.

To know whether the vaccine-induced T cells they detected in their study were actually effective against variants such as Delta and Omicron, the scientists took a close look at how the T cells responded to different viral “epitopes.”

Every virus is made up of proteins that form a certain shape or architecture. A viral epitope is a specific landmark on this architecture that T cells have been trained to recognise. Current COVID vaccines were designed to teach the immune system to recognise specific epitopes on the initial variant of SARS-CoV-2, specifically targeting the Spike protein which the virus uses to access human cells. As the virus has mutated, its architecture has changed, and the concern is that immune cells will no longer recognise their targets.

The new study shows that while the architecture of Omicron is different enough to evade some neutralising antibodies and memory B cells, memory T cells still do a good job of recognising their targets, even on the highly mutated Omicron variant. Overall, at least 83 percent of the CD4+ (helper) T cell responses and 85 percent of the CD8+ T cell responses stayed the same, no matter the vaccine or the variant.

The memory B cells that do bind Omicron are likely to also contribute to protection against severe disease, forming multiple lines of defence. 

Researchers are now focusing on measuring T cells, B cells and antibody responses after COVID booster shots, and also characterising immune responses after a breakthrough infection.

Source: La Jolla Institute

Categories : COVID HIVTags :

Vaccine Trial Will Determine Moderna Efficacy in People with HIV

On By ModernMedia
Image by Sergey Mikheev on Unsplash

A highly anticipated clinical trial in eight sub-Saharan countries is the first to specifically evaluate the efficacy of a COVID vaccine in people living with HIV, including those with poorly controlled infections. It also is the first study to evaluate the efficacy of vaccines – in this case, Moderna mRNA-1273 – against the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.

In addition to examining the efficacy of COVID mRNA vaccines in people living with HIV, the study investigators seek to identify the optimal regimen for this population and how it might vary based on whether an individual has previously had COVID-19 or not.

The trial will be conducted in East and Southern Africa – regions of the world that have been highly impacted by HIV. It is expected to enrol about 14,000 volunteers at 54 clinical research sites in South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Eswatini, Malawi, Zambia, Uganda and Kenya, where adult HIV prevalence ranges from 4.5% to 27%.

“Sub-Saharan Africa has been hit hard by the COVID pandemic, but access to effective vaccines, especially mRNA technology, has been very limited,” said Dr. Nigel Garrett, co-chair of the study and head of Vaccine and HIV Pathogenesis Research at the Center for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA). “The Ubuntu trial will provide safety data to regulators and assess correlates of protection from COVID-19, and it will answer important questions on mRNA vaccine dosage regimens among people living with HIV.”

About 12 600 people living with HIV and about 1400 who are HIV-negative are expected to be enrolled in the study. About 5000 will have previously had COVID, confirmed by an antibody blood test done at initial enrollment. All participants will receive the Moderna vaccine, but dosages and schedules will vary depending on previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants living with HIV will get access to optimal HIV treatment throughout the trial.

“This region faces a huge HIV burden,” said Dr Glenda Gray, Ubuntu study protocol lead adviser and president of the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC). “Although safe and effective vaccines have been developed for COVID-, HIV and COVID are on a collision course,” she added. “The impact of COVID-19 on people living with HIV is a concern for the continent, particularly in light of the recently-sequenced omicron variant set to drive South Africa’s fourth wave and further infections globally.”

Dr Philip Kotzé, one of the lead study investigators, said the Ubuntu study would not be possible without the crucial participation of rural communities across Southern and East Africa. “These communities have been disproportionately impacted by the twin pandemics of HIV and COVID-19, and they now have an unprecedented opportunity to help advance science and improve our understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in the context of HIV.”

Dr Larry Corey, principal investigator of both the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) and the COVID-19 Prevention Network (CoVPN), and co-leader of the network’s vaccine testing pipeline, said this study seeks to address the knowledge gap around HIV status and COVID vaccination.

“Vaccination and treatment are critical for those who face the dual threat of HIV and COVID, as they remain at high risk of acquisition and transmission and potentially can be the origin of future variants,” Dr Corey said. “It is imperative that we as scientists and as society double-down on global efforts to find and make available effective vaccines and treatments. This study represents an important step forward in our efforts to reduce the burden of COVID among HIV-infected persons and understand whether current dosage regimens are adequate.”

Source: HIV Vaccine Trials Network

Categories : COVIDTags :

Moderna Narrowly Beats Pfizer in Effectiveness

On By ModernMedia
Image of a syringe for vaccination
Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

In the first head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, researchers examined the electronic health records of veterans who had received each vaccine and found Moderna to be slightly more effective.

The Moderna vaccine’s increased level of protection included a 21% lower risk of documented infection and 41% lower risk of hospitalisation, according to the research team, whose findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Both vaccines are incredibly effective, with only rare breakthrough cases,” said Dr J.P. Casas, a member of the research team. “But regardless of the predominant strain – Alpha earlier and then Delta later – Moderna was shown to be slightly more effective.”

Researchers designed their comparative effectiveness study to address the previously unanswered question of which of the two mRNA vaccines is more effective. Effectiveness outcomes were: documented COVID, symptomatic disease, hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death. The investigators drew on the database of US veterans who received one of the two COVID vaccines between early January 2021 and mid-May 2021.

As initially designed, the research focused on the Alpha variant that predominated at the time. The study matched 219 842 recipients of the Pfizer vaccine to the same number of recipients of the Moderna vaccine. The two groups were matched based on a variety of clinical and demographic factors that could affect outcomes.

Over the study’s 24-week follow-up period, the estimated risk of documented infection was 4.52 events per 1000 people in the Moderna vaccine group and 5.75 per 1000 in the Pfizer group, an excess of 1.23 cases per 1000. The investigators also observed smaller excesses of symptomatic COVID (0.44 events), hospitalisation (0.55 events), ICU admission (0.10 events), and death (0.02 events) per 1000 people in the Pfizer group relative to the Moderna group.

This pattern of a lower risk for Moderna held up when Delta was the main strain. In this comparison, excess risk of documented infection over 12 weeks was 6.54 events per 1000 people for the Pfizer vaccine, compared to Moderna. Given the shorter time frame available for this supplementary research, infection was the only outcome researchers analyzed. Also, the estimates were considered less precise because a smaller number of individuals were eligible for this analysis.

Randomised trials comparing the mRNA vaccines against placebos had previously shown both vaccines to be very effective against symptomatic COVID infection (95% effectiveness for Pfizer-BioNTech, 94% for Moderna), borne out by real-world vaccine use.

“Given the high effectiveness of both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, confirmed by our study, either one is recommended to any individual offered a choice between the two,” said first author Dr Barbra A. Dickerman. “However, while the estimated differences in effectiveness were small on an absolute scale, they may be meaningful when considering the large population scale at which these vaccines are deployed. This information may be helpful for larger decision-making bodies.”

The massive Veteran Association records system supported a very large sample size. This, in turn, allowed the study to identify even small differences in effectiveness between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The researchers used a methodology known as causal inference to mirror a gold standard randomised trial as closely as possible. Causal inference is a type of data analysis that helps researchers draw firm conclusions about cause and effect.

Using the VA database, vaccine recipients were closely matched on age, sex, race, geographic location, and other attributes that could affect COVID-related outcomes.

“After this careful matching, we found that the two vaccine groups were extremely similar in terms of variables with respect to an extensive set of demographic, geographic, and health-related attributes,” Dr Dickerman said. “This allowed our observational analysis to produce exceptionally credible results during a global emergency, when answers are needed fast and randomised trials can be impractical.”

As the global pandemic continues to unfold, the research team is working on answers relating to the comparative safety, versus effectiveness, of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Dr Dickerman characterises comparative safety as an “additional piece of the puzzle to support vaccine decision-making.”

Even beyond this analysis, further evaluation of the vaccines’ comparative effectiveness and safety is needed, the authors concluded. Meanwhile, given the evidence at hand, the authors concluded about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines considered in their study, “Given the high effectiveness and safety profile of both mRNA vaccines, either one is strongly recommended.”

Source: EurekAlert!

Categories : COVIDTags :

Six Different Booster Vaccines Found to be Safe and Effective

On By ModernMedia
Image by Ivan Diaz on Unsplash

The first randomised trial of COVID boosters, published in The Lancet, has shown that six are safe and provoke strong immune responses. Participants have previously received a two-dose course of ChAdOx1-nCov19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca [ChAd]) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech [BNT]). The announcement comes just as the Omicron variant is beginning to spread around the world.

ChAd has now been deployed in more than 180 countries and BNT in more than 145 countries. Several studies show that two doses of ChAd and BNT confer 79% and 90% protection, respectively, against hospitalisation and death after six months. However, protection against COVID infection wanes in time, which has led to the consideration of boosters. However, there are currently little data on the comparative safety of COVID vaccines, and the immune responses they stimulate, when given as a third dose.

The COV-BOOST study looked at safety, immune response (immunogenicity) and side-effects (reactogenicity) of seven vaccines when used as a third booster jab. The vaccines studied were ChAd, BNT, NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax [NVX]), Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen [Ad26]), Moderna [mRNA1273], VLA2001 (Valneva [VLA]), and CVnCov (Curevac [CVn]).

“The side effect data show all seven vaccines are safe to use as third doses, with acceptable levels of inflammatory side effects like injection site pain, muscle soreness, fatigue. Whilst all boosted spike protein immunogenicity after two doses of AstraZeneca, only AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Novavax, Janssen and Curevac did so after two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech”, commented Professor Saul Faust, trial lead.

“It’s really encouraging that a wide range of vaccines, using different technologies, show benefits as a third dose to either AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech. That gives confidence and flexibility in developing booster programmes here in the UK and globally, with other factors like supply chain and logistics also in play”, added Prof Faust.

“It’s important to note that these results relate only to these vaccines as boosters to the two primary vaccinations, and to the immune response they drive at 28 days. Further work will generate data at three months and one year after people have received their boosters, which will provide insights into their impact on long-term protection and immunological memory. We are also studying two of the vaccines in people who had a later third dose after 7-8 months although results will not be available until the new year.”

A randomised, phase 2 trial of seven booster vaccines was conducted, with the third doses given 10-12 weeks after initial two-dose courses of ChAd or BNT. The trial involved 2878 healthy participants between June 1st and June 30th 2021. Participants had received their first doses of ChAd or BNT in December 2020, January or February 2021, and second doses at least 70 days before enrolment for ChAd and at least 84 days for BNT. About half of participants received two doses of ChAd and half two doses of BNT. The control vaccine used was a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY).

Participants were aged 30 or older, roughly half of whom were 70 or older. The average age of participants who received ChAd was 53 years in the younger age group and 76 years in the older age group. Average ages for BNT were 51 and 78 years, respectively.

Thirteen experimental and control arms of the trial (seven vaccines plus three at half dose and three control arms) were split into three participant groups. Group A received NVX, half dose NVX, ChAd, or a control. Group B received BNT, VLA, half dose VLA, Ad26 or a control. Group C received Moderna, CVn (development of which was halted in October 2021), half dose BNT, or a control.

Primary outcomes were adverse effects seven days after receiving a booster, and levels of antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein after 28 days, compared to controls. Secondary outcomes included the response of T cells to wild type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants. 

Increases in anti-spike protein antibody levels after 28 days varied across the vaccines. After two doses of ChAd these ranged from 1.8 times higher to 32.3 times higher according to the booster vaccine used. Following two doses of BNT, the range was 1.3 times higher to 11.5 times higher. Significant T-cell responses were reported in several combinations.

At 28 days, all booster results were similar for participants aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years or older. Boost ratios should be interpreted with caution, the authors caution, since they relate to immunogenicity rather than protection against disease, and the relationship between antibody levels at day 28 and long-term protection and immunological memory is unknown.

Reactions to all seven vaccines were similar, with fatigue, headache, and injection site pain most often reported. These were more commonly reported by those aged 30-69. 912 of the 2878 participants experienced a total of 1036 adverse events, 24 of which were severe.

Source: EurekAlert!

Categories : COVIDTags :

Pharma Giants Draw Their Plans Against Omicron

On By ModernMedia
Image by Ivan Diaz on Unsplash

As world leaders seek to reassure an anxious world about the emergence of Omicron, Moderna’s CEO believes that vaccines will not have the same level of effectiveness against the new variant. Meanwhile, other major vaccine developers such as Oxford University maintain that it is still too early as yet to draw conclusions, and existing vaccines can be updated in a matter of months.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said that “in no world” would vaccines protect against Omicron at the same level as they did against Delta. He added that he thought it would be “material drop”, though data was still to come. However, the scientists he spoke to had all said “‘This is not going to be good’.” This is because 32 of the variant’s 50 mutations are on the Spike protein, which current vaccines are designed to target.

He noted the reduced effectiveness of existing vaccines against Delta, saying that scientists had not expected such a high level of mutation to emerge for another two to three years. His comments come in stark contrast to others who stress that there is no information yet to suggest that Omicron is any more serious than previous variants, or that vaccines are less effective against it.

Oxford University released a statement saying they were monitoring the situation, but stood ready to produce a new vaccine if necessary.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different.

“However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID vaccine if it should be necessary.”

Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla said in an interview with CNBC that his company had already started work on an updated vaccine, which would be ready in 100 days.

In the Netherlands, scientists from the country’s National Institute of Public Health said that they had detected Omicron on flights that had arrived from Southern Africa before the official announcement of the discovery by South Africa. The country is now trying to locate and isolate some 5000 individuals who arrived in the country from the region. 

Categories : COVID Obstetrics & GynaecologyTags :

No Finding of Early Miscarriage Risk from COVID Vaccinations

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Shvets Productions on Pexels

A new study has found no association between COVID vaccinations and risk of first-trimester miscarriages, providing further evidence of the safety of COVID vaccination during pregnancy. The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Study co-author Dr Deshayne Fell said, “The study analysed several national health registries in Norway to compare the proportion of vaccinated women who experienced a miscarriage during the first trimester and women who were still pregnant at the end of the first trimester.”  Dr Fell, is Associate Professor in the School of Epidemiology and Public Health in the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Medicine and a Scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute.

“Our study found no evidence of an increased risk for early pregnancy loss after COVID vaccination and adds to the findings from other reports supporting COVID vaccination during pregnancy,” the study authors wrote. 

“The findings are reassuring for women who were vaccinated early in pregnancy and support the growing evidence that COVID vaccination during pregnancy is safe.”

Dr Fell and colleagues found no relationship between the type of vaccine received and miscarriage. In Norway, the vaccines used included Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca.

“It is important that pregnant women are vaccinated since they have a higher risk of hospitalisations and COVID-complications, and their infants are at higher risk of being born too early. Also, vaccination during pregnancy is likely to provide protection to the newborn infant against COVID infection in the first months after birth,” the study authors stressed.

Source: University of Ottawa

Categories : COVID VaccinesTags :

Why It’s So Hard to Compare Vaccines

On By ModernMedia

While the world is looking to vaccinations to end the COVID pandemic, a MedPage Today article explains that even with vaccines that have high efficacy, ending transmission is not guaranteed, and there are a lot of differences between simple figures like 94% for Pfizer and 95% for Moderna vaccines.

Firstly, asymptomatic cases are not tracked, simply because assembling tens of thousands of people for a clinical trial is a monumental logistic task, and in the current pandemic, a race against time.

Internist Jeffrey Carson, MD, who managed the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine trial’s site at Rutgers University in New Jersey, explained to MedPage Today that it would be difficult but not impossible to create a vaccine trial that provided rapid data about asymptomatic cases.

“You might have people swab themselves every couple days, or every week. You’ll be picking up a lot of disease that way, and you’ll be able to see if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic disease,” Dr Carson said. The current Novavax trial, for example, only asks participants to test themselves for COVID with provided swabs if they believe they are developing symptoms. The Novavax vaccine had also prompted alarm as it was only 49.4% effective against the B501Y.V2 variant, its efficacy reduced by the low rate of protection for HIV positive participants.

The New York Times explained that efficacy is merely how well a vaccine did in a clinical trial, effectiveness is how well it performs in the real world.
Vaccine statistics are difficult even for medical experts to grasp. An infectious diseases expert wrote in a letter to the Lancet explaining that they had misunderstood what 94% to 95% efficacy means for Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and asymptomatic spread.

“It does not mean that 95% of people are protected from disease with the vaccine — a general misconception of vaccine protection.” Instead, it “means that in a population such as the one enrolled in the trials, with a cumulated COVID-19 attack rate over a period of 3 months of about 1% without a vaccine, we would expect roughly 0.05% of vaccinated people would get diseased [with symptomatic infections]. … Accurate description of effects is not hair-splitting; it is much-needed exactness to avoid adding confusion to an extraordinarily complicated and tense scientific and societal debate around COVID-19 vaccines.”

A further problem for scientists is that viral diseases can spread to people unaware that they are infected, something they are still working on understanding. “It makes a lot of sense for survival of the invaders, if you think about it. Humans who feel unwell are not going out to meet up with others, but ones who feel fine will continue along with their daily schedules, allowing the infection to spread,” Bryn Boslett, MD, an infectious disease physician at the University of California San Francisco, told MedPage Today.

Regardless of how well vaccines interrupt the transmission of COVID, it’s important that mask-wearing, social distancing and disinfecting habits are maintained.

“One major worry going forward is that vaccinated people will change their behaviour and stop taking COVID-19 precautions,” Dr Boslett said. “It’s very tempting to do so, very understandable. However, the stars are not yet aligned for us to go back to ‘normal.’ There is still a lot of COVID-19, and most of us are still vulnerable. We need to continue to focus on behavior to reduce new cases of COVID-19.”

Source: MedPage Today