NIAID
The global SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate was just under 1% as of a year ago, with significant differences by variant, country, and time, according to a meta-analysis of 55 studies on more than 111,000 cases.
Published in BMC Infectious Diseases, the meta-regression analysis by Sichuan University researchers in China included 46 cohort, 6 case-control, and 3 cross-sectional studies on COVID-19 reinfection rates up to March 2023. Reinfections were considered those identified more than 90 days after a primary case. Possible resurgences or vaccine breakthrough infections were not included.
"Reinfections have been reported continuously since the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic, and especially after the Omicron variant became a major prevalent variant worldwide, there has been a significant increase in the number of reported SARS-CoV-2 reinfections globally," the researchers wrote.
Overall, the COVID-19 reinfection ranged from 0% to 28.4%, and the pooled reinfection rate was 0.9%. There were statistically significant rate differences by variant: 0.3% for the wild-type virus, 0.6% for the Alpha variant, 0.4% for Delta, and 4.1% for Omicron.
Reinfections have been reported continuously since the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic, and especially after the Omicron variant became a major prevalent variant worldwide.
Brazil had the highest reinfection rate (6.6%), while Spain's rate was 0.3%. The rate varied over time, with the first notable change on day 154 (1.1%). The highest rate occurred on day 361 (2.9%). The US SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate peaked at 0.2% on day 167.
While the second wave peak was lower than that in the first, the third wave peak was significantly higher. "We speculated that one of the reasons why the third peak was higher than the first peak might be caused by the weakening of the populations immunity level over time," the authors wrote. "This phenomenon might be due to the fact that immunization levels decreased over time after vaccination or infection with SARS-CoV-2."
"Our results warn us that the natural decay of immune levels over time may lead to the reinfection of SARS-CoV-2, resulting in a new round of COVID-19 pandemic," they added.
Nikos Pekiaridis | Lightrocket | Getty Images
The update brings Moderna a step closer to having multiple products on the market, which it badly needs amid plunging demand for Covid shots worldwide. The company's Covid jab is its only commercially available product.
Moderna's stock has long been tied to that vaccine, with shares falling nearly 45% last year.But shares of the company closed 3% higher on Wednesday after the announcements.
Moderna will chart its post-Covid future Wednesday during its fifth annual "Vaccines Day," an investor event in Boston focused on the company's vaccine portfolio.
That business has an estimated total addressable market of $52 billion for infectious disease shots, which includes $27 billion for respiratory vaccines and more than $25 billion for latent shots and other jabs.
A category of viruses called latent viruses linger inside patients for prolonged periods without causing any symptoms but can "reactivate" and cause serious health complications later in their lives. They represent a huge unmet need that Moderna can address, Moderna CEO Stphane Bancel told CNBC in an interview on Wednesday.
"Once those viruses are in your body, it's in your body forever," he said, adding that there are no approved shots for several of the latent viruses, including some that Moderna is targeting.
The company will present new clinical trial data on the three vaccines, including some against latent viruses, at the event Wednesday.
Those vaccines include a shot against norovirus, a highly contagious stomach bug that causes vomiting and diarrhea; a vaccine against Epstein-Barr virus, a common herpes virus that can cause contagious infections and is associated with some cancers; and a shot designed to target a virus that causes shingles and chickenpox.
Moderna will also discuss other updates across its vaccine business. The company has five other shots in late-stage clinical trials and said it expects to release data on two of those jabs this year. That includes its combination vaccine against Covid and the flu and a shot against another common herpes virus called cytomegalovirus, or CMV.
Among the other vaccines in late-stage development is a jab against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, which is expected to win regulatory approval in the U.S. in May.
It also includes a new and improved version of Moderna's Covid shot. The company on Tuesday said its "next-generation" Covid shot triggered a stronger immune response against the virus than its current vaccine on the market in a late-stage clinical trial.
Another shot in phase three trials is the company's flu vaccine.
Also on Wednesday, Moderna said it recently entered into a development and commercialization funding agreement with Blackstone Life Sciences, a private equity segment of The Blackstone Group. Blackstone will fund up to $750 million to advance Moderna's flu shot program, with "a return based on commercial milestones" and low single-digit royalties.
Bancel told CNBC the company's messenger RNA platform, used in its Covid vaccine, "is working so well" against other diseases. That mRNA technology works by teaching the body to produce a harmless piece of a virus, which triggers an immune response against certain diseases.
"Think about the [total addressable market] Moderna is going after we're going to be one of the most important vaccine companies in the world," he said.
Still, it will take time before Moderna's pipeline will pay off.
The company in its third-quarter earnings release in November said it expects revenue to fall to $4 billion in 2024 before it grows again in 2025. It expects to break even in 2026, executives said during a November earnings call.
Moderna's latest shots to move into late-stage trials represent significant opportunities for the company.
There is currently no approved shot to prevent norovirus, the most common cause of the stomach flu. The virus results in approximately 200,000 deaths per year and substantial health-care costs, according to Moderna.
The company examined two different norovirus shot candidates in a phase one trial on more than 600 patients ages 18 to 49 and 60 to 80 in the U.S.
An interim analysis showed that a single dose of a trivalent vaccine called mRNA-1403 targeting three norovirus strains triggered a strong immune response across all dose sizes. The shot also had a "clinically acceptable" safety profile.
Moderna said it is moving that shot to a phase three trial.The market for norovirus vaccines represents a $3 billion to $6 billion annual market, according to the company.
Grace Cary | Moment | Getty Images
There are also no shots currently approved to prevent Epstein-Barr virus. It accounts for more than 90% of cases of infectious mononucleosis, a contagious infection known as mono, which can cause fever, sore throat and chronic fatigue.
Both the virus and mono are associated with a higher risk of certain cancers. The virus also increases a patient's risk of developing multiple sclerosis by 32-fold, according to Moderna. That disease is characterized by the the immune system eating away at the protective covering of nerves.
"It's a big issue for teenagers. There are sometimes kids who have to redo a year of high school or college, which is a big waste of your life," Bancel said. "But it has also been associated with multiple sclerosis, which is a terrible disease affecting mostly women ... so we think we could prevent that."
Moderna has been developing two shots designed to tackle multiple conditions associated with Epstein-Barr virus. That includes a shot designed to prevent mono called mRNA-1189, which will move to a phase three study after positive early stage trial data.
A phase one trial examined that vaccine in patients 12 to 30 years old in the U.S. The study found that the shot produced an immune response against mono and was overall well tolerated across all dose sizes.
Moderna is developing another shot called mRNA-1195, which is designed to target multiple sclerosis and a subcategory of lymphoma in solid organ transplant patients. A phase one trial on that vaccine is fully enrolled, according to the company.
Bancel said the company believes the Epstein-Barr virus will be "a several billion dollar market."
Varicella-Zoster virus causes both chickenpox and shingles. Older adults have declining immunity against that virus, making them more vulnerable to developing painful, itchy and blister-like rashes. About 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. will develop shingles at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Moderna studied its vaccine against the virus, mRNA-1468, in an early to mid-stage trial on healthy adults ages 50 and older in the U.S.
The shot caused a strong immune response at one month after the second dose and was generally well tolerated by patients, according to the company. Additional data from that ongoing trial will be available later this year.
Moderna estimates that the market for Varicella-Zoster virus could be $5 billion to $6 billion annually.
Health
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share by Email
Posted: March 28, 2024
New guidelines suggest certain high-risk groups could benefit from having another dose of aCOVID-19vaccinethis spring and more frequent shots in general while the broader population could be entering once-a-year territory, much like an annual flu shot.
Medical experts told CBC News that falling behind on the latest shots can come with health risks, particularly for individuals who are older or immunocompromised.
"Even when the risk of infection starts to increase, the vaccines still do a really good job at decreasing risk of severe disease," said McMaster University researcher and immunologist Matthew Miller.
Back in January, Canada's national vaccine advisory body set the stage for another round of spring vaccinations. In a statement, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) stated that starting in spring 2024, individuals at an increased risk of severe COVID may get an extra dose of the latest XBB.1.5-based vaccines, which better protect against circulating virus variants.
That means:
The various spring recommendations don't focus on pregnancy, despite research showing clear links between a COVID infection while pregnant, and increased health risks. However, federal guidance does note that getting vaccinated during pregnancy can protect against serious outcomes.
"Vaccinated people can also pass antibodies to their baby through the placenta and through breastmilk," that guidance states.
Multiple provinces have started rolling out their own regional guidance based on those early recommendations with a focus on allowing similar high-risk groups to get another round of vaccinations.
B.C. is set to announce guidance on spring COVID vaccines in early April, officials told CBC News, and those recommendations are expected to align with NACI's guidance.
In Manitoba, high-risk individuals are already eligible for another dose, provided it's been at least three months since their latest COVID vaccine.
Meanwhile Ontario's latest guidance, released on March 21, stresses that high-risk individuals may get an extra dose during a vaccine campaign set to run between April and June. Eligibility will involve waiting six months after someone's last dose or COVID infection.
Having a spring dose "is particularly important for individuals at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 who did not receive a dose during the Fall 2023 program," the guidance notes.
And in Nova Scotia, the spring campaign will run from March 25 to May 31, also allowing high-risk individuals to get another dose.
Specific eligibility criteria vary slightly from province-to-province, so Canadians should check with their primary care provider, pharmacistor local public health team for exact guidelines in each area.
WATCH: Age still best determines when to get next COVID vaccine dose, research suggests:
Show more
The rationale behind the latest spring guidelines, Miller said, is that someone's age remains one of the greatest risk factors associated with severe COVID outcomes, including hospitalization, intensive care admissionand death.
"So that risk starts to shoot up at about 50, but really takes off in individuals over the age of 75," he noted.
Canadian data suggests the overwhelming majority of COVID deaths have been among older adults, with nearly 60 per cent of deaths among those aged 80 or older, and roughly 20 per cent among those aged 70 to 79.
People with compromised immune systems or serious medical conditions are also more vulnerable, Miller added.
While the general population may not require shots as frequently as higher-risk groups, Miller said it's unlikely there will be recommendations any time soon to have a COVID shot less than once a year, given ongoing uncertainty about COVID's trajectory.
"Going forward, I suspect for pragmatic reasons, [COVID vaccinations] will dovetail with seasonal flu vaccine campaigns, just because it makes the implementation much more straightforward," Miller said.
"And although we haven't seen really strong seasonal trends with SARS-CoV-2 now, I suspect we'll get to a place where it's more seasonal than it has been."
In the meantime, the guidance around COVID shots remains simple at its core: Whenever you're eligible to get another dose whether that's once or twice a year you might as well do it.
One analysis, published in early March in the medical journal Lancet Infectious Diseases, studied more than 27,000 U.S. patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, between Septemberand December2023.
The team found individuals who had an updated vaccine reduced their risk of severe illness by close to a third and the difference was more noticeable in older and immunocompromised individuals.
Another American research team from Stanford University recently shared the results from a modelling simulation looking at the ideal frequency for COVID vaccines.
The study in Nature Communications suggests that for individuals aged 75 and up, having an annual COVID shot could reduce severe infections from an estimated 1,400 cases per 100,000 people to around 1,200 cases while bumping to twice a year could cut those cases even further, down to 1,000.
For younger, healthier populations, however, the benefit of regular shots against severe illness was more modest.
The outcome wasn't a surprise to Stanford researcher Dr. Nathan Lo, an infectious diseases specialist, since old age has consistently been a risk factor for severe COVID.
"It's almost the same pattern that's been present the entire pandemic," he said. "And I think that's quite striking."
More frequent vaccination won't prevent all serious infections, he added, or perhaps even a majority of those infections, which highlights the need for ongoing mitigation efforts.
Lauren Pelley Senior Health & Medical Reporter
Lauren Pelley covers health and medical science for CBC News, including the global spread of infectious diseases, Canadian health policy, pandemic preparedness, and the crucial intersection between human health and climate change. Two-time RNAO Media Award winner for in-depth health reporting in 2020 and 2022. Contact her at: lauren.pelley@cbc.ca
This updated chart collection takes a deep dive into employment data to analyze how jobs and wages in the health sector have changed since the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike past recessions, health sector employment saw a big drop in early 2020 but has rebounded since. As of February 2024, the health sector added 66,700 jobs over the previous month. Jobs in the health sector are 5.7% higher than in February 2020 (the previous peak), compared to 3.4% in all other sectors.
Still, not all health sector employment trends have recovered. While hospitals and physicians offices have returned to pre-pandemic employment levels, industries such as elderly care and skilled nursing care facilities continue to see relatively low employment. Employment in elderly care facilities reached a low of 869,500 in January of 2022 and has been growing slightly since. These facilities had 974,600 employees nationwide in February 2020, and 965,100 in February of 2024a 1% decrease. Skilled nursing care facilities have seen an 8.3% drop in employment since February of 2020.
Thechart collection is available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system
Pictured: BioNTech's signage outside its headquarters in Germany/iStock, U.J. Alexander
The National Institutes of Health has slapped BioNTech with a notice of default over alleged royalty payments the biotech owes the agency related to sales of its Pfizer-partnered COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty, according to the companys SEC filing.
A notice of default informs a contract partner that they have failed to fulfill an obligation and that legal action will be taken if they continue to default. In this case, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) maintains that BioNTech breached its license agreement, under which the agency claims it is entitled to certain royalty payments on Comirnaty revenues since its commercialization.
BioNTech in Fridays SEC filing said that it disagrees with the positions being taken by the NIH and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations of breach. In developing Comirnaty, an mRNA vaccine that uses lipid particles to deliver a short stretch of modified messenger RNA, BioNTech and Pfizer obtained a non-exclusive license from NIH which allowed the partners to use specific technology related to the SARS-CoV-2s spike protein and certain mutations that lock the protein in an antigenically preferred perfusion conformation, according to BioNTechs annual report filed last week.
In its annual report, the biotech pointed to its ongoing royalty disagreement with NIH, though the agency was still only threatening to send a notice of default at that point.
We cannot guarantee that our interpretation of these license agreements will prevail, or that we will not ultimately need to pay some or all of the royalty and other related amounts in dispute, BioNTech noted in its annual report.
In addition to its payment spat with NIH, BioNTech is also involved in a long-running patent dispute with Moderna. The contention covers betacoronavirus vaccine technology using at least one RNA polynucleotide with an open reading frame that encodes at least one betacoronavirus antigenic peptide.
In November 2023, the European Patent Office ruled against Moderna and found that this claim was invalid.
There have also been other COVID-19 vaccine payment disputes beyond the BioNTech-NIH feud. In February 2024, Novavax settled its ongoing disagreement with public-private partnership Gavi over the companys COVID-19 vaccine NVX-CoV2373.
To end all litigation surrounding the dispute, Novavax made an upfront $75 million payment and promised deferred payments of $80 million annually through 2028.
Tristan Manalac is an independent science writer based in Metro Manila, Philippines. Reach out to him on LinkedIn or email him at tristan@tristanmanalac.com or tristan.manalac@biospace.com.
(March 28, 2024 / JNS)
The reasons that haredi Jewswhether of Lithuanian or Sephardic origins, or Chassidimtended to vaccinate at lower rates for COVID-19 than the rest of the Israeli population are not religious-framed but more related to lack of knowledge, fears, trust and logistics, according to new research from Hebrew University scholars.
Writing on March 26 in the Journal of Religion and Health, Miriam Schiff and Nitzan Sharon-Laviboth of the Hebrew University of Jerusalems social work and social welfare schoolnoted that haredi Israelis had the countrys highest rate of COVID infection and the nations lowest vaccination rates.
The most prominent reasons for vaccine avoidance were perceived immunity based on prior infection by the virus and lack of trust in the vaccines safety, the researchers wrote. The study results call for better outreach to this community and specific psycho-education interventions tailored for its women.
One reason that vaccination rates were lower for haredi women than they were for their male counterparts, according to the researchers, was high rates of fear of harm the vaccine may cause to fertility, especially among women, which was indicated as a barrier to vaccination.
The significant barrier to the fear of harming fertility may be related to the high values the ultra-Orthodox society holds for large families, child-rearing and transmitting their religious values to the next generation, the researchers added.
By the end of June 2021, 89% of non-haredi Jewish Israelis had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, compared to 59% of haredim, according to the scholars.
The researchers describe Chassidim as gathering around the court of the Rebbethe movements spiritual leader who holds the community togetherand centering on mysticism and devotion of the heart but divided by fidelity to their specific rabbinic leader.
Meanwhile, Misnagdimthose of Lithuanian descentfocused more rationally on cognitive powers and Torah study and are considered a leading Torah group in the ultra-Orthodox community and therefore have the authority to set the behavior norms in all, per the paper. Their devotion to Jewish law and tradition comes from their cognition rather than their heart.
Sephardim, to the scholars, are Jewish descendants from Spain and the Islamic countries and other areas of Sephardic settlement.
This subgroup gave rise to the Shas political movement established in 1984, and as a result, its power intensified in Israeli politics, they added. At the same time, the Sephardic subgroup remained rejected by other subgroups of the ultra-Orthodox society and therefore engaged in building their own cultural and educational institutions.
The researchers claim that haredims greater vulnerability was explained by crowded households, communal lifestyle and limited exposure to external information on protective measures. They add that the majority believed that the holy activity of Torah learning would protect them against the virus and that the protective measures imposed by the government contradicted their faith in almighty protection.
Even though the cumulative rate of infection among ultra-Orthodox communities was 2.5 times higher than in non-ultra-Orthodox ones, they write, the odds of vaccine uptake among the ultra-Orthodox community were lower by 19% than the odds among the general Jewish population.
The research sample consisted of 623 people (338 men and 285 women) with an 85.3% response rate among the 730 self-identified haredim over the age of 18 who were approached. The scholars noted that one of the studys limitations was its exclusion of a third of the haredi community that refuses to use the Internet or smartphones for religious reasons.
They found that 65.8% of participants were vaccinated, with 63.2% of those unvaccinated explaining that I recovered from COVID-19, and I am immune. Some 36% said I still do not know enough about the harm that the vaccine may cause in the long run, and 20.2% said that COVID-19 is not dangerous for people of my age. Nearly one-fifth (18.9%) said I am afraid that the vaccine will harm my fertility. Some 13.6% said Im pregnant/trying to get pregnant/nursing.
The risk of harming fertility may be perceived by ultra-Orthodox women as a potential violation of a major religious role and the core role of women in this community, the researchers wrote. Future studies should further examine this potential explanation.
They also found different rates of vaccination among different kinds of haredim.
The Lithuanian/Misnagdim subgroup had a higher rate of vaccination uptake and lower mistrust of its efficacy among those who were not vaccinated compared with the Chassidic and Sephardic ultra-Orthodox subgroups, they wrote. We can interpret this finding by the characteristics of the Misnagdim. They are oriented toward analytical thinking, and many are open to more secular information, such as scientific data and publications.
You have read 3 articles this month.
Register to receive full access to JNS.
Claims questioning COVID-19 vaccine safety have circulated continuously since COVID-19 vaccination campaigns began at the end of 2020.
One such claim suggests that there has been an unprecedented rise in the number of cancer cases after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, implying that the vaccines are responsible for this phenomenon. Science Feedback previously explained why this claim was unsubstantiated.
This claim occasionally relies on anecdotal evidence, such as accounts from health practitioners. However, anecdotal evidence alone isnt enough to support a scientific hypothesis. Anecdotes cant confirm whether there has been a nationwide increase in cancer cases.
A better approach would be to look at national cancer statistics gathered by public health agencies and research organizations. When doing so, readers may come across headlines that seem to support the claims, at least at first glance.
Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) expects a 77% increase in world cancer cases by 2050 and the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates the number of new U.S. cancer cases to hit a record high of two million in 2024. Furthermore, news outlets have also reported an unexpected increase of cancer incidence among younger adults, although the cause of this phenomenon, which started before the COVID-19 pandemic, remains elusive.
However, simply because these predicted increases occurred after COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out doesnt in itself prove that the vaccines were the cause. This article aims to provide insight on this matter and explain why there is no plausible link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer.
Each year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) provides a report on cancer burden in the U.S. This report uses cancer data from official nationwide databases to forecast the expected number of new cancer cases and deaths for the year to come.
The latest ACS report was published in January 2024. It predicted that new cancer cases would reach two million in 2024 for the first time[1]. This increase was attributed in part to the aging and growth of the population and by a rise in diagnoses of 6 of the 10 most common cancers.
Although the ACS predicted a record high number of new cancer diagnoses in 2024, their analysis also found that cancer incidence has actually fallen over time, as seen in Figure 1 below. This difference can be explained by the fact that, unlike the raw number of cancer cases reported each year, the incidence accounts for changes in population size and age structure over time. Therefore, it is better suited for yearly comparisons.
Figure 1 Trends in cancer incidence and mortality. The incidence is corrected for changes in the U.S. population demographics over the years and is expressed in cases per 100,000 people. Source: The American Cancer Society.
Thus, in spite of the projected increase in the raw number of cancer cases in years to come, the decreasing incidence indicates that the cancer burden on the overall population is expected to be lower than in the previous years.
Although the latest ACS report provided an informative overview of the current cancer trends in the U.S., its unable to tell us whether theres actually been a sudden increase in cancer cases since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
This is because the forecast is based on data from public cancer databases only up to the year 2020. The reason for this is that it takes time to collect data from local healthcare practitioners, verify the accuracy of the information, and consolidate the data into databases. As the ACS report explains:
The most recent year for which incidence and mortality data are available lags 24 years behind the current year because of the time required for data collection, compilation, quality control, and dissemination.
In other words, this forecast can only extrapolate to the recent years historical trends that were already happening prior to 2020. Thus, any changes in cancer cases due to unexpected events occurring from 2021 onward and not resulting from historical trends would not be captured by this model.
Therefore, the verified data available at the national level is affected by the uncertainty surrounding the forecast. It isnt suited to support the claim that cancer diagnoses actually spiked.
Even if cancer cases have actually risen post-COVID vaccination, this alone still isnt bulletproof evidence that the vaccines are responsible for the rise. People and healthcare systems experienced significant upheaval during the pandemic that could have influenced the number of new cancer diagnoses in 2024, independent of vaccination.
For instance, there was a sudden reduction in cancer care in 2020 owing to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to delays or missed preventive screenings for cancer. This may result in an uptick in new cancer diagnoses in recent years, since people can now get screened for cancer more easily once again.
Commenting on the issue, Lisa Richardson, the director of the CDCs Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, told CNN:
What we might see is that there are actually more cases of cancer, because people caught up. But its not truly an increase. Its just a catch up of what was there that we didnt diagnose during 2020.
In their news story accompanying the release of the 2024 report, the ACS also explained:
Researchers have not yet analyzed the potentially myriad ways in which the pandemic affected these cancer statistics. When data is available, researchers expect that the public health crisis of COVID-19 will be found to have delayed diagnoses and led to worse outcomes and more deaths. But it will take many years to parse out those effects.
Still, data from other sources appear to offer some reassurance. Arif Kamal, the chief patient officer for the American Cancer Society, told the Associated Press that state-level surveillance systems are able to rapidly detect unexpected increases in cancer diagnoses. Even so, none detected abnormal rates of increased cancer cases.
In short, nationwide data available to date isnt suitable to support the claim that weve seen a sudden spike in cancer cases since the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination. Further, local cancer monitoring systems havent detected such a spike, according to an ACS expert. Its therefore unlikely that an unexpected spike in cancer cases will appear in future years, when the data for 2021 to 2024 is consolidated in the national databases.
Moreover, even if there was an increase in cancer cases, this still wouldnt mean that COVID-19 vaccines were responsible for it. Delays and missed cancer screening tests, a consequence of the pandemic, may also cause a delayed detection of new cancer cases.
We have thus far explained that there was no data available to date supporting the claim that cancer cases surged after COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out. But another reason why this claim isnt credible is because theres no plausible scientific mechanism explaining how COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer.
Science Feedback and others have explained that theres no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines may cause cancer, according to medical experts.
Victoria Chou, a maternal and child health epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, told USA Today that [t]here is no evidence to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine in any way causes cancer.
Likewise, the U.S. National Cancer Institute states that there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression. Claims to the contrary commonly rely on flawed analysis or unverified statements.
Some claims suggested that small DNA fragments present in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as a possible mechanism through which the vaccines could cause cancer. But this claim is unsupported by scientific evidence, as Science Feedback previously explained.
In particular, the presence of DNA derived from the simian virus 40 (SV40) was reported in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The SV40 virus has been found to cause cancer in some animals like hamsters[2,3]. It also caused a health scare when it was found to contaminate polio vaccines used in the 1950s and 1960s.
However, theres no evidence that SV40 increases the risk of cancer in humans, as we explained in a previous claim review. Furthermore, the vaccine vials that were analyzed only contained fragments of one segment of the SV40 DNAnot the virus itself or its full genetic sequence, which makes the risk of an interaction with our genome even less plausible.
Moreover, the amount of residual DNA detected in the vaccine vials is well below the limit recommended by the WHO and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as Science Feedback showed.
Finally, there is no scientific evidence or plausible mechanism suggesting that these DNA fragments would change our DNA and cause cancer.
The latest report from the ACS predicted a rise in the number of cancer cases in the U.S. for 2024, which can be attributed in part to changes in the size and age structure of the U.S. population.
However, its important to be aware that these are predictions based on cancer cases in pre-pandemic years. Since it takes several years to gather, verify, and consolidate cancer data at the national level, theres no real-time way to monitor national cancer trends. Medical experts have also explained that there is no plausible mechanism or data that connect COVID-19 vaccines to cancer.
[ABSTRACT]. Objective. To provide an overview of the status of the childhood vaccination schedule in the Americas, outline program structures, and identify updated implementation strategies to improve vaccination coverage following the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A group of experts in pediatrics, epidemiology, vaccines, and global and public health discussed the current status of the childhood vaccination schedule in the Americas, describing the program structure and identifying new implementation strategies that have the potential to improve vaccination coverage in the post-pandemic context, after the challenges COVID-19 presented for more than two years. Results. The Americas currently face a high risk of resurgence of diseases that were previously controlled or eliminated. Therefore, it is important to find new strategies to educate citizens on the risks associated with lower vaccination rates, especially in children. Conclusions. New strategies along with strong mobilization of the population and advocacy by citizens are necessary to prevent antivaccination groups from gaining a stronger presence in the region and jeopardizing the credibility of the Expanded Program on Immunization.
Vaccination is considered one of the main public health milestones with a major global impact. Vaccination, together with safe drinking water and improved access to the health system, has contributed to the reduction of infant mortality and increased life expectancy across many countries. According to World Health Organization (WHO) data, vaccination campaigns prevent 23 million deaths annually (1). Practically anywhere in the world, a newborn now has a higher five-year survival rate compared to those born in 1990. The mortality rate in children younger than 5 years old has decreased by 59%, from 93 deaths for every 1 000 live births in 1990 to 38 deaths for every 1 000 live births in 2019. On average, the daily under-five mortality was 14 000 in 2019, a significant drop from 34 000 in 1990 (2).
The mortality and morbidity rates for vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) in the early 1970s were high worldwide. The lack of consolidated immunization programs led WHO, in 1974, to recommend the creation of the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) to support worldwide vaccination efforts. The EPI has been a successful program in the Americas for over 40 years, being the world leader in controlling and eliminating VPDs, including smallpox, polio, rubella, measles, and neonatal tetanus. Since the creation of the EPI, countries have updated their national vaccine schedules from including six to an average of 16 vaccines, thus expanding protection of the population (3). Infant vaccination not only directly reduces the incidence of disease cases but also has a broader impact on public health by curbing transmission of infectious agents within communities. This ripple effect due to indirect protection (collective immunity) extends to the well-being of adults, the elderly, and individuals at high risk of developing complications. This article aims to provide an overview of the status of the childhood vaccination schedule in the Americas, outline program structures, and identify updated implementation strategies that can improve vaccination coverage following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pictured: Facade of Moderna's office in Cambridge, Massachusetts/iStock, hapabapa
Moderna announced during its annual Vaccines Day event on Wednesday that it has secured up to $750 million in funding from asset management firm Blackstone Life Sciences to advance its mRNA-based flu program.
In exchange for its funding commitment, Blackstone will be eligible for cumulative commercial milestones and low-single digit royalties on sales of products from Modernas flu portfolio. The Massachusetts-based biotech will retain all rights to its flu assets. The Blackstone haul will not affect Modernas 2024 research and development framework of approximately $4.5 billion and the company said it will reflect the funding as a reduction in its R&D expenses.
Moderna CEO Stphane Bancel in a statement said that the additional support from Blackstone will help the company run late-stage studies for its flu assets, allowing it to achieve its ambition of launching multiple vaccine products in the next few years and deliver the greatest possible impact to people through mRNA medicines.
Modernas flu pipeline includes nine assets, including the Phase III mRNA-1010 vaccine candidate, which is being developed for seasonal flu. In September 2023, the company released an interim analysis for the Phase III P303 study of mRNA-1010, which showed that the vaccine candidate met all of its co-primary endpoints and elicited high antibody titers for all four A and B influenza strains, as compared to a currently approved flu shot.
During Wednesdays Vaccines Day event, Moderna also revealed that mRNA-1010 is currently being assessed in an older adult extension phase of P303. The company is expecting to file regulatory submissions for mRNA-1010 within the year.
In addition to mRNA-1010, Moderna is working on four other flu shotsmRNA-1021, mRNA-1030, mRNA-1011 and mRNA-1012all of which are currently in Phase II studies. The company is also developing combination vaccines for flu, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
Beyond its Blackstone flu partnership, Moderna on Wednesday provided updates for the companys other pipeline assets including its next-generation COVID-19 vaccine mRNA-1283, which aced its Phase III NEXTCove trial and induced a stronger immune response against the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and original SARS-CoV-2 strains, as opposed to a licensed coronavirus vaccine.
Moderna also unveiled data from its Phase II/III ConquerRSV study, which showed that its vaccine candidate mRNA-1345 reached a vaccine efficacy of 83.7% against RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD), defined by at least two symptoms.
The company has filed for the regulatory approval of mRNA-1345 for the prevention of RSV-LRTD and acute respiratory disease in older adults aged 60 years and older. Moderna expects the FDAs decision this year.
Tristan Manalac is an independent science writer based in Metro Manila, Philippines. Reach out to him on LinkedIn or email him at tristan@tristanmanalac.com or tristan.manalac@biospace.com.
Simply asking patients to get the flu vaccine, and combining it with helpful video and print messages, is enough to persuade many who visit emergency departments to roll up their sleeves, according to a new study led by UC San Francisco.
Researchers found a 32% vaccine uptake in patients who were asked if theyd be interested in getting the flu shot and told their health providers would be informed. They saw a 41% uptake for those who were asked about receiving a flu shot and received a pamphlet, watched a three-minute video of a physician with a similar ethnic background discussing the vaccine and were told about the benefits of the vaccine in person.
The study published March 26, 2024 in NEJM Evidence.
The researchers say this type of systematic approach could lead to more underserved people receiving vaccines, especially those whose primary health care occurs in emergency departments.
Flu leads to considerable mortality in the United States annual death rates are typically in the tens of thousands, especially when combined with pneumonia but vaccination is particularly low among underserved populations and those whose primary care occurs in emergency departments. Such patients often face general vaccine hesitancy or a lack of opportunities for the flu shot.
This research arose from our desire to address the health disparities that we see every day in our emergency department, especially among homeless persons, the uninsured and immigrant populations, said first author, Robert M. Rodriguez, MD, a professor of Emergency Medicine with the UCSF School of Medicine.
Investigators in the study created flu vaccine messaging including a brief video, flyer and a scripted health provider question, Would you be willing to accept the influenza vaccine? and assessed their effectiveness among nearly 800 patients in five cities: San Francisco, Houston, Philadelphia, Seattle and Durham, North Carolina. The median age was 46. More than half the participants in the trial were Black or Latino, 16 % lacked health insurance, nearly a third had no primary care and 9% were homeless or living in severely inadequate housing. These demographic characteristics are similar to patient populations often served by urban emergency departments.
The researchers designed the clinical trial to span a single flu season between Oct. 2022 and Feb. 2023.
Overall, our study adds to the growing body of knowledge showing that a number of important public health interventions can and should be delivered to underserved populations in emergency departments, said Rodriguez, whose previous research has found the effectiveness of delivering similar COVID-19 vaccine messaging to emergency department patients.
Co-authors: From UCSF, co-authors are Melanie F. Molina, MD; James Ford, MD; Mireya I. Arreguin; Cecilia Lara Chavez; and Dave V. Glidden, PhD. See paper for other co-authors.
Funding: The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (RO1 AII66967-01).
