The Indian Health Services (IHS) Influenza-like Illness Awareness System (IIAS) captures flu vaccination coverage among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) patients who received care in an IHS and in some Tribal or Urban Indian (I/T/U) healthcare facilities.
The health care personnel flu vaccine coverage is captured through the IHS National Immunization Reporting System (NIRS) and includes employees who work in IHS and in some tribal and urban healthcare facilities.
There may be gaps in both the IIAS and NIRS systems since not all I/T/U healthcare facilities report.
Data are availablevia Indian Health Service.
OCT. 3, 2023: Its officially flu season in Fayette County: Lexington has its first two lab-confirmed flu cases of 2023-24.
Lexington had 3,472 lab-confirmed flu cases and 16 flu-related deaths in the 2022-23 flu season. About 80% of the cases were in people who were not vaccinated.
Free flu shots are available for anyone 6 months and older at the 2023 Free Flu Shot Clinic 3-6:30 p.m. Oct. 12 at Central Baptist Church, 110 Wilson Downing Road. Pre-registration is required, so sign up now at www.LFCHD.org/FluShots2023 (or www.lfchd.org/gripe2023espanol/ in Spanish)! The high-dose vaccine for ages 65 and older will also be available at this years event in limited quantities.
Be sure to check out the Facebook Event listing:2023 Free Flu Shot Clinic Facebook Event.
Free flu shots are available for uninsured/underinsured people by same-day appointment only at LFCHDs Public Health Clinic, 650 Newtown Pike. Please call 859-288-2483 Monday-Thursday to make an appointment; walk-ins will not be accepted in the Public Health Clinic.
The seasonal flu shot is recommended for all people ages 6 months and older and is especially important for people at the highest risk of serious complications from the flu: infants and young children, pregnant women, anyone with underlying medical conditions and adults 50 and older.
In addition to helping prevent you from getting sick with flu, a flu shot can reduce the severity of your illness if you do get flu and reduce your risk of a flu-associated hospitalization.
Please remember that lab-confirmed cases only reflect a small percentage of flu cases actually in Lexington, so the actual case count is likely much higher. Many providers use rapid testing, which is not required to be reported to state/local health departments. We are aware of people in our community testing positive for the flu virus in their providers offices through rapid testing, and the flu will continue to spread throughout the winter.
As the world grapples with a myriad of health challenges, one area of significant progress is the development of a vaccine for the current strain of bird flu. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is making strides in this area and a vaccine could be ready in approximately 18 months, according to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. This development is a significant step towards addressing the threat posed by the bird flu.
The USDAs efforts are part of a wider global movement to control the spread of avian influenza. Manufacturers such as Boehringer Ingelheim are playing an active role in this endeavor, with a comprehensive approach that includes robust biosecurity measures, vaccination programs, and surveillance. Several countries, including China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico, and some Latin American nations, have already implemented mass avian influenza (AI) vaccination campaigns. In Europe, France, Italy, and the Netherlands have initiated avian flu vaccine strategies and are conducting research trials.
Recent research has shed light on the efficacy of a novel DNA vaccine against H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses in chickens. The study demonstrated that a single vaccination at 2 weeks of age, boosted at 4 weeks, with or without an adjuvant, could provide full clinical protection and significantly reduce viral shedding. This vaccine also induced long-lasting humoral immunity and was effective in preventing viral transmission. These findings underscore the potential role of such third-generation vaccines in combating H5 HPAI viruses.
While advancements in vaccine development are promising, regulatory approvals pose a significant challenge. The USDA is currently awaiting applications from vaccine manufacturers for product registration. This includes at least one African swine fever (ASF) vaccine manufacturing firm from Vietnam and three avian flu jab makers from abroad. The Philippines continues to face challenges with transboundary animal diseases, which have led to price spikes in meat products, causing economic strain. The Department of Agriculture permits the use of inactivated, vectored, and combination vaccines for AI control, but only certain avian types are eligible for vaccination.
Despite these advances, bird flu remains a public health threat. Cambodia, for example, recently reported four human infections with HPAI A(H5N1) bird flu virus, the first human infections in the country in 2024. These cases have led to a concerted response from the U.S. CDC and Cambodian authorities to address the situation. Genetic sequencing identified the H5N1 viruses as H5 clade 2.3.2.1c, a strain that has circulated in Cambodia for several years. These occurrences highlight the ongoing need for effective vaccines and containment strategies.
In conclusion, while progress is being made in the development of a bird flu vaccine, challenges remain. The global community must continue to work together to implement comprehensive vaccination programs, robust biosecurity measures, and strong surveillance systems to effectively manage and eventually eradicate the threat of bird flu.
Researchers update the composition of influenza vaccines every six monthsto match the strains of the virus that are circulating in the wild, so that the shots may provide protective immunity against the flu. But despite their best efforts, researchers rarely perfectly match the strains loaded in the vaccine with the strains circulating by the time the vaccines reach the market.
The reason for this is the long gestation period usually at least six months between identifying the circulating strain and the development, manufacturing, and distribution of the vaccines. By the time the updated flu vaccine is available, the circulating strain may have drifted from the one contained in the vaccine, thanks to the high mutational rates of influenza viruses.
The match between strains included in the vaccine and strains in circulation is the most important factor controlling the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of flu vaccines. The VE increases by more than 25%when there is a match with the circulating strains but can be as low as 10% in seasons when there is no match.
Another issue with flu vaccines is the durability of protection. According to a recent study, the VE declines by 7% for H3N2 to 11% for H1N1 viruses per month, and could vanish as soon as90 days after vaccination.
There are some striking similarities between the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. The VE of COVID-19 vaccines varies according to the diseases progression as well as the circulating strains. With the advent of the highly mutated Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, the VE of COVID-19 vaccines has nose-dived.
According to one large study, COVID-19 vaccines had a VE of 52.8% against the Delta variant but only 16.4% against the Omicron. Another large review of the findings of 78 studies on the VE of four COVID-19 vaccines before the advent of Omicron concluded that VE against symptomatic disease waned by 20-30% by the sixth month of the primary series.
Thus, researchers worldwide rushed to revise COVID-19 vaccines that contained the ancestral strain to match the circulating strain of SARS-CoV-2 and keep it clinically relevant.
In early 2023, a highly mutated sub-lineage of the Omicron variant, XBB.1.5, emerged. It was antigenically as distant from the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2 as the latter was from the SARS-CoV-1 virus. There were three COVID-19 vaccines available as booster doses at this time: the monovalent ancestral (OG) shot, a bivalent OG+BA.1 shot, and a bivalent OG+BA.5 booster. However, as stated above, none of the vaccines (including mRNA vaccines) were found to be efficacious against infections of this hypermutated variant.
Subsequently, the vaccine was updated in mid-2023 to include the antigens of the XBB.1.5 strain. But by the time the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) approvedand recommended the updated monovalent vaccine as a booster, another new lineage of Omicron,JN.1, had emerged with more than 30 mutations in the spike protein and a high immune-evasion potential. By January 2024, JN.1 had completely replaced XBB.1.5 in the population.
The CDC estimated the updated booster was around 50% efficacious against symptomatic JN.1 infections but some experts doubted this figure.
The matching problem raises a pertinent question: Is it prudent to attempt frequent updates?
One interesting study from Australia, uploaded as a preprint paper on February 9, analysed this question in detail. Researchers retrospectively analysed 18 studies that investigated the ability of the OG, the OG+BA.1, and the OG+BA.5 boosters to neutralise the variant that started circulating immediately after their deployment. They found that updated vaccines consistently improved neutralising antibody titres by 40% or more compared to non-updated vaccine formulations.
Specifically, the researchers found that relative to the OG antigens efficacy against XBB.1.5, the BA.1 update did a better job and the BA.5 update did even better. Based on these benefits in the neutralisation titres, they predicted that updating an existing vaccine should, on average, induce a 1.52-times higher titre against a future variant compared to boosting with an older formulation. The researchers also stated they expect a 11-25% increase in VE against symptomatic disease and 23-33% against severe disease caused by the future variant.
In sum, the study supports the case for revising COVID-19 vaccines formulations as often as possible.
However, there are some confounding factors, including past exposure to infections, inter-study variations of such exposures, in vitro and in vivo differences, and publication biases. The researchers also clarified the benefits of the update would depend on the distance between the antigens in the updated vaccine and the future variant that eventually circulates. Indeed, there is no guarantee that a profoundly drifted variant with a very high transmissibility and more virulence wont emerge in future, and which would negate the advantage of updating existing vaccines.
Further, the researchers only explored one arm of the immune system: the humoral immunity conferred by antibodies. The other arm, cellular immunity conferred by T-cells, wasnt considered. T-cells are like airbags: they deploy on their own and become safer to use with every accident (or exposure) that engineers study. Antibodies are like brakes. Our brain deploys them. They are terrific when new but suffer wear over time, and need to be updated.
In India, the advent of Omicron (mainly BA.2) in January 2022 and its resultant mild disease rendered a much lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. For many Indians, the pandemic is long past, notwithstanding a few surges in 2023. Currently, there is no Indian vaccine with antigens matching the currently dominant JN.1 strain or its predecessor, XBB.1.5. Corbevax, the vaccine made by Biological E, is currently developing an XBB-based vaccine.
Whether Indians should be boosted with an updated COVID-19 vaccine depends on the objective. If it is to prevent severe disease, hospitalisation, and death, only three exposures through natural infection or vaccination will suffice to confer protection irrespective of the antigenic makeup of the circulating variant. (This protection is provided by our T-cells.) This is the case with most healthy, immunocompetent individuals.
For the vulnerable sections of society, like the elderly and those with comorbidities and immunodeficiencies, it is desirable to actively prevent an infection. These individuals need an updated booster. The vaccines based on OG or older strains may not offer meaningful protection owing to the mismatch and other factors.
All available influenza vaccines are being developed on conventional egg-based or cell-culture platforms, which is why updating them takes six months or more. Many COVID-19 vaccines use the mRNA platform whose main attraction is the ease and speed with which they can be modified. Unfortunately, updating mRNA vaccines has also required four to six months.
India also has a next-generation mRNA vaccine called Gemcovac, developed indigenously by Gennova Lab and based on the old Omicron variant. It can also be updated to use a contemporaneous variant, but that depends on the need and the will of the national recommending authority as much as the still-evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Vipin M. Vashishtha is past national convener, IAP Committee on Immunisation, and director, Mangla Hospital & Research Center, Bijnor.
Therapeutic cancer vaccines are an appealing strategy for treating malignancies. In theory, when a patient is injected with peptide antigens protein fragments from mutant proteins only expressed by tumor cells T cells learn to recognize and attack cancer cells expressing the corresponding protein. By teaching the patients own immune system to attack cancer cells, these vaccines ideally would not only eliminate tumors but prevent them from recurring.
In practice, however, effective cancer vaccines have not materialized, despite decades of research.
There has been a lot of work to make cancer vaccines more effective, says Darrell Irvine, a professor in the MIT departments of Biological Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering and a member of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT. But even in mouse and other models, they typically only provoke a weak immune response. And once those vaccines are tested in a clinical setting, their efficacy evaporates.
New hope may now be on the horizon. A vaccine based on a novel approach developed by Irvine and colleagues at MIT, and refined by researchers at Elicio Therapeutics, an MIT spinout that Irvine founded to translate experiments into treatment, is showing promising results in clinical trials including Phase 1 data suggesting the vaccine could serve as a viable option for the prevention of pancreatic and other cancers.
Formulating a question
When Haipeng Liu joined Irvines laboratory as a postdoc almost 15 years ago, he wanted to dive into the problem of why cancer vaccines have failed to deliver on their promise. He discovered that one important reason peptide vaccines for cancer and other diseases tend not to elicit a strong immune response is because they do not travel in sufficient quantities to lymph nodes, where populations of teachable T cells are concentrated. He knew that attempts to target peptides to the lymph nodes had been imprecise: Even when delivered with nanoparticles or attached to antibodies for lymphatic immune cells, too many vaccine peptides were taken up by the wrong cells in the tissues or never even made it to the lymph nodes.
But Liu, now an associate professor of chemical engineering and materials science at Wayne State University, also had a simple, unanswered question: If vaccine peptides did not make it to the lymph nodes, where did they go?
In the pursuit of an answer, Liu and his Irvine Lab colleagues would make discoveries crucial to trafficking peptides to the lymph nodes and developing a vaccine that provoked surprisingly strong immune responses in mice. That vaccine, now in the hands of Irvine Lab spinout Elicio Therapeutics, Inc., has produced early clinical results showing a similarly strong immune response in human patients.
Liu began with testing peptide vaccines in mouse models, finding that peptides injected in the skin or muscle generally rapidly leak into the bloodstream, where they are diluted and degraded rather than traveling to the lymph nodes.He tried bulking up and protecting the peptide vaccine by enclosing it within a micellar nanoparticle. This type of nanoparticle is composed of amphiphilic molecules, with hydrophilic heads that, in a water-based solution, encase a payload attached to its hydrophobic lipid tails. Liu tested two versions, one that locked the micellar molecules together to securely enclose the peptide vaccine and another, the control, that did not. Despite all the sophisticated chemistry that went into the locked micellar nanoparticles, they induced a weak immune response. Liu was crushed.
Irvine, however, was elated. The loosely bound control micelles produced the strongest immune response he had ever seen. Liu had hit on a potential solution just not the one he expected.
Formulating a vaccine
While Liu was working on micellar nanoparticles, he had also been delving into the biology of the lymph node. He learned that after removing a tumor, surgeons use a small blue dye to image lymph nodes to determine the extent of metastasis. Contrary to expectation raised by the dye molecules small molecular weight, it does not vanish into the bloodstream after administration. Instead, the dye binds to albumin, the most common protein in blood and tissue fluids, and tracks reliably to the lymph nodes.
The amphiphiles in Lius control group behaved similarly to the imaging dye. Once injected into the tissue, the loose micelles were broken up by albumin, which then carried the peptide payload just where it needed to go.
Taking the imaging dye as a model, the lab began to develop a vaccine that used lipid tails to bind their peptide chains to lymph node-targeting albumin molecules.
Once their albumin-hitchhiking vaccine was assembled, they tested it in mouse models of HIV, melanoma, and cervical cancer. In the resulting 2014 study, they observed that peptides modified to bind albumin produced a T cell response that was five to 10 times greater than the response to peptides alone.
In later work, Irvine lab researchers were able to generate even larger immune responses. In one study, the Irvine Lab paired a cancer-targeted vaccine with CAR T cell therapy. CAR T has been used to treat blood cancers such as leukemia successfully but has not worked well for solid tumors, which suppress T cells in their immediate vicinity. The vaccine and CAR T cell therapy together dramatically increased antitumor T cell populations and the number of T cells that successfully invaded the tumor. The combination resulted in the elimination of 60% of solid tumors in mice, while CAR T cell therapy alone had almost no effect.
A model for patient impact
By 2016, Irvine was ready to begin translating the vaccine from lab bench experiments to a patient-ready treatment, spinning out a new company, Elicio.
We made sure we were setting a high bar in the lab, said Irvine. In addition to leveraging albumin biology that is the same in mouse and humans, we aimed for and achieved 10-, 30-, 40-fold greater responses in the animal model relative to other gold standard vaccine approaches, and this gave us hope that these results would translate to greater immune responses in patients.
At Elicio, Irvines vaccine has evolved into a platform combining lipid-linked peptides with an immune adjuvantno CAR T cells required. In 2021, the company began a clinical trial, AMPLIFY-201, of a vaccine named ELI-002, targeting cancers with mutations in the KRAS gene, with a focus on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The vaccine has the potential to fill an urgent need in cancer treatment: PDAC accounts for 90% of pancreatic cancers, is highly aggressive, and has limited options for effective treatment. KRAS mutations drive 90-95% of all PDAC cases, but there are several variations that must be individually targeted for effective treatment. Elicios cancer vaccine has the potential to target up to seven KRAS variants at once covering 88% of PDAC cases. The company has initially tested a version that targets two, and Phase 1 and 2 studies of the version targeting all seven KRAS mutants are ongoing.
Data published last month in Nature Medicine from the Phase 1 clinical trial suggests that an effective therapeutic cancer vaccine could be on the horizon. The robust responses seen in the Irvine Labs mouse models have so far translated to the 25 patients (20 pancreatic, 5 colorectal) in the trial: 84% of patients showed an average 56-fold increase in the number of antitumor T cells, with complete elimination of blood biomarkers of residual tumor in 24%. Patients who had a strong immune response saw an 86% reduction in the risk of cancer progression or death. The vaccine was tolerated well by patients, with no serious side effects.
The reason I joined Elicio was, in part, because my father had KRAS-mutated colorectal cancer, said Christopher Haqq, executive vice president, head of research and development, and chief medical officer at Elicio. His journey made me realize the enormous need for new therapy for KRAS-mutated tumors. It gives me hope that we are on the right path to be able to help people just like my dad and many others.
In the next phase of the PDAC clinical trial, Elicio is currently testing the formulation of the vaccine that targets seven KRAS mutations. The company has plans to address other KRAS-driven cancers, such as colorectal and non-small cell lung cancers. Peter DeMuth PhD '13, a former graduate student in the Irvine Lab and now chief scientific officer at Elicio, credits the Koch Institutes research culture with shaping the evolution of the vaccine and the company.
The model adopted by the KI to bring together basic science and engineering while encouraging collaboration at the intersection of complementary disciplines was critical to shaping my view of innovation and passion for technology that can deliver real-world impact, he recalls. This proved to be a very special ecosystem for me and many others to cultivate an engineering mindset while building a comprehensive interdisciplinary knowledge of immunology, applied chemistry, and materials science. These themes have become central to our work at Elicio.
Funding for research on which Elicios vaccine platform is based was provided, in part, by a Koch Institute Quinquennial Cancer Research Fellowship, the Marble Center for Cancer Nanomedicine, and the Bridge Project, a partnership between the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT and the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center.
usatoday.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.
Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on usatoday.com
This winter, for the first time ever, there were two vaccines available to ward off respiratory syncytial virus, which is particularly dangerous to older adults and infants. Only one of them Abrysvo, made by Pfizer was approved for pregnant women, and neither was for young children.
The distinction apparently slipped by some clinicians and pharmacists.
At least 128 pregnant women were mistakenly given the alternative vaccine Arexvy, by GSK and at least 25 children under age 2 received a vaccination, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned.
Dr. Sarah Long, a pediatric infectious disease physician and an adviser to the agency, said she was blindsided by the reports. It is very upsetting that this should happen, she said.
Arexvy has not been tested in pregnant women or children, so information about its effects in those groups is limited. No serious harms from the errors have yet been confirmed, but the outcome was unknown in a majority of reported cases.
Based on available data, Dr. Long said she was more concerned about the young children who received an R.S.V. vaccine than the pregnant women who received Arexvy or their babies. Evidence from animal testing strongly suggests that Arexvy might exacerbate R.S.V. infection in children younger than 2, rather than mitigate it, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
To prevent that, the C.D.C. has recommended that the children who mistakenly got either vaccine also be given nirsevimab (sold as Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody that provides strong immune protection, while the R.S.V. season lasts.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber?Log in.
Want all of The Times?Subscribe.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
A Bollywood film actress and model who faked her own death to highlight the dangers of cervical cancer and to promote the HPV vaccine is now being sued for the stunt.
A post on Poonam Pandey's Instagram page on Feb. 2 stated that she had died from cervical cancer, with her team confirming the news to the media. Her manager, Nikita Sharma, stated the star had "bravely fought the disease" but had "tragically passed away," according to NDTV India.
However, the following day, Pandey, 32, posted a video of herself revealing she was alive and well and that the death announcement was a ruse to raise awareness about the potentially fatal disease.
The move sparked uproar online, with the overwhelming majority of commentators slamming Pandey for her actions.
Poonam Pandey, a Bollywood film actress and model, faked her own death via a social media post on Friday to raise awareness about the potentially fatal disease and for women to get vaccinated. (Ashish Vaishnav/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
OHIO NURSE AND MOM BEATS CERVICAL CANCER AS EXPERT SHARES WARNING SIGNS YOU SHOULD NEVER IGNORE
"Im alive, I didnt die because of cervical cancer," Pandey told her 1.3 million followers, as poignant music played in the background.
"Unfortunately, I cant say that about the hundreds of thousands of women who have lost their lives because of cervical cancer. Im here to tell you that, unlike other cancers, cervical cancer is preventable, all you have to do is get a test and you have to get HPV vaccine."
"We can do all this and more to make sure there are no more lives lost to this disease," she added.
She then directed her followers to log onto a specially designed website www.poonampandeyisalive.com which was packed with information on the deadly cancer and the vaccine designed to prevent it. The website and her Instagram posts relating to her fake death have now been deleted.
Cervical cancer visualized by sagittal MRI, papillomavirus infection is often the cause. (CAVALLINI JAMES/BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
CERVICAL CANCER DRUG RAISES SURVIVAL RATE BY 30% COMPARED TO CHEMOTHERAPY: 'GAME-CHANGER'
Pandey and her husband Sam Bombay are now being sued for more than $12 million by Faizan Ansari, according to The Times of India. Ansari is an actor and reality TV star.
The lawsuit alleges Pandey and Bombay orchestrated a "false conspiracy of death" and trivialized serious illnesses like cancers for their own publicity gains.
Ansari argues that the couple's actions betrayed the trust of millions of Indians and also tarnished the reputation of the Bollywood fraternity.
The lawsuit demanded the couple's arrest and called for them to appear in court to face defamation charges.
Pandey's initial death post came a day after Indias finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced plans for a cervical cancer vaccination program for girls aged 9 to 14 as part of her interim budget in 2024, according to NDTV. Cervical cancer arises from the cervix, which is the lower part of theuterusin thefemale reproductive system.
Cervical cancer is ranked as the most frequent cancer in women in India, with around 365 million women aged above 15 years of age, who are at risk of developing cervical cancer. The World Health Organization estimates there are 74,000 deaths annually in India, accounting for nearly one-thirdof the global cervical cancer deaths.
This undated image provided by Merck in October 2018 shows a vial and packaging for the Gardasil 9 HPV vaccine. (AP Images)
Pandey's stunt caused a firestorm online and was mostly panned by her followers.
"Am happy she is alive but pls arrest her for this drama and publicity stunt," wrote one follower, with his top post getting nearly 33,000 likes on Feb. 3.
Another commenter wrote, "Exploiting a serious issue like cervical cancer for cheap publicity is absolutely disgraceful. Using your platform to spread awareness is commendable, but faking your own death is a new low. Respect for real survivors and victims matters more than attention-seeking stunts.#Disappointed."
Pandey posted a second video the day after her death post acknowledging the blowback she was receiving. She said she was sorry for upsetting people but did not appear to have any regrets.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"Yes, I faked my demise. Extreme, I know. But suddenly we all are talking about cervical cancer, arent we?" Pandey said. "Its a disease that silently takes a life and this disease needed the spotlight urgently."
"I am proud of what my death news has been able to achieve."
"Unlike some other cancers, cervical cancer is entirely preventable," she said. "The key lies in the HPV vaccine and early detection tests. We have the means to ensure no one loses their life to this disease. Lets empower one another with critical awareness and ensure every woman is informed about the steps to take."
Russian scientists are close to creating cancer vaccines, says President Putin. The global burden of cancer is staggering, with mi... Read More Russian scientists are close to creating cancer vaccines, says President Putin. The global burden of cancer is staggering, with millions of lives affected each year by its devastating impact. From diagnosis to treatment, cancer poses significant challenges to healthcare systems, economies, and individual lives worldwide. Efforts to combat cancer require collaborative approaches, innovative treatments, and comprehensive prevention strategies to alleviate its burden on societies globally. Read Less A cancer vaccine might become a possibility shortly as Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russian scientists were close to creating vaccines for cancer. Putin said the vaccine could soon be available to patients. Putin said in televised comments that "We have come very close to the creation of so-called cancer vaccines and immunomodulatory drugs of a new generation", Reuters reported. "I hope that soon they will be effectively used as methods of individual therapy," he added, speaking at a Moscow forum on future technologies. Putin, however, did not specify which types of cancer the proposed vaccines would target, nor how. There are currently six licensed vaccines against human papillomaviruses (HPV) that cause many cancers, including cervical cancer, according to the World Health Organization, as well as vaccines against hepatitis B (HBV), which can lead to liver cancer. Bubonic plague, which led Black Death in the 14th century, detected in 2024! A number of countries and companies are working on cancer vaccines. Last year the UK government signed an agreement with Germany-based BioNTech to launch clinical trials providing "personalised cancer treatments", aiming to reach 10,000 patients by 2030. Pharmaceutical companies Moderna and Merck & Co are developing an experimental cancer vaccine that a mid-stage study showed cut the chance of recurrence or death from melanoma - the most deadly skin cancer - by half after three years of treatment. Global cancer burden growing, amidst mounting need for services: WHO On World Cancer Day, which was observed on February 4, the World Health Organisation (WHO) had released the latest estimates of cancer across 115 countries. "About 1 in 5 people develop cancer in their lifetime, approximately 1 in 9 men and 1 in 12 women die from the disease," the WHO report had found along with an alarming data that cancer had claimed 9.7 million lives in 2022 and close to 20 million new cancer cases were detected in 2022. The commonly occurring cancers As per the WHO, Lung cancer was the most commonly occurring cancer worldwide with 2.5 million new cases accounting for 12.4% of the total new cases. Female breast cancer ranked second, followed by colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, and stomach cancer. The TOI Lifestyle Desk is a dynamic team of dedicated journalists... Read More The TOI Lifestyle Desk is a dynamic team of dedicated journalists who, with unwavering passion and commitment, sift through the pulse of the nation to curate a vibrant tapestry of lifestyle news for The Times of India readers. At the TOI Lifestyle Desk, we go beyond the obvious, delving into the extraordinary. Consider us your lifestyle companion, providing a daily dose of inspiration and information. Whether you're seeking the latest fashion trends, travel escapades, culinary delights, or wellness tips, the TOI Lifestyle Desk is your one-stop destination for an enriching lifestyle experience.Read Less
end of article
After a brutal three-year period that saw its shares collapse by 99%, any remaining longtime shareholders of Novavax (NASDAQ: NVAX) are doubtlessly eager for the biotech to finally step out of the shadows of its first "success" and launch its next winner, even if it means waiting as long as 10 years.
Alas, that might not be enough time for this company to find its next big thing. In fact, it might not survive half that long. Here's why.
There is a strong possibility that Novavax won't even be in business in 2034. On Jan. 31, management announced another round of layoffs, slashing 12% of its workforce in the aftermath of cutting 25% of its employees in May 2023. Management has already told shareholders that the biotech's survival is in serious question.
Despite trailing 12-month (TTM) sales of its Nuvaxovid coronavirus vaccine bringing in more than $1 billion, it's still nowhere near being profitable, and it's burning plenty of cash each quarter. Right now, it has $651 million in cash, equivalents, and short-term investments, and its TTM cash burn was $727 million.
The issue is that Nuvaxovid didn't get approved until long after competing vaccines were already commercialized and had time to establish their market shares. Then, as the pandemic's intensity was perceived to decrease, the COVID-19 vaccine gold rush era ended. Now, there is little demand for doses and the few people who do already have strong preferences when they go to get their boosters, assuming they go at all. There probably won't be any disruption of that trend over the next 10 years, so if Novavax is going to survive, it'll need to develop and sell new or dramatically improved products.
Assuming Novavax survives the near term, it is unclear exactly which products it will be selling or what vaccines or other biotechnologies it will be developing. Today, its pipeline features no early-stage programs at all, and only two in phase 2 trials. One of those two is a seasonal influenza jab, and the other is a combination vaccine for both coronavirus and influenza.
Story continues
Both of those programs could yield medicines that generate some recurring revenue over the long-term if they are commercialized, and they might even sell enough to sustain the company in a reduced form. But there is a scenario in which it could perform a bit better.
Under the best possible conditions, ongoing research into its coronavirus vaccine's performance characteristics would show that it is capable of arresting viral transmission, thereby fully protecting people from infection. That'd be a major advantage, as the vaccines made by Pfizer, Moderna, and other manufacturers can't fully prevent people from developing symptoms and infecting others. Based on the research available today, that outcome is plausible, though still unproven. It's also possible that an updated version of the product could be developed intentionally to have the desired attributes.
Uncovering or developing other positive and unique capabilities, like perhaps the shot's ability to guard against the possibility of infected people developing "long COVID" or other chronic post-infection problems, would be another bonus. And when bundled into the same shot with an effective flu vaccine, the more complete protection offered by Novavax's jab could make it an obvious winner for people looking to stay healthy, driving recurring revenue and securing a decent market share. Today's shareholders would likely not be rich 10 years from now if this best-case scenario occurs, and they might not beat the market, but they might see some moderate returns over time.
Without much to offer from its pipeline beyond seasonal updates to its coronavirus vaccine and opportunities for convenient combination vaccines, it's difficult to see how the Novavax of 2034 might be significantly bigger than the Novavax of today. If it's going to survive, it'll certainly need to become profitable at a minimum.
If it navigates its near-term financial challenges, the highest probability outcome is that it will continue to limp along through the rest of the decade and beyond. In case it was not clear from the above, it's not a great idea to buy shares of this business today. Even if it survives, it does not have a pathway to thriving in the long term. Regardless of where it'll be in the 2030s, that probably means investors should consider selling this biotech stock.
Should you invest $1,000 in Novavax right now?
Before you buy stock in Novavax, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the10 best stocks for investors to buy now and Novavax wasnt one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service hasmore than tripledthe return of S&P 500 since 2002*.
See the 10 stocks
*Stock Advisor returns as of February 12, 2024
Alex Carchidi has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Pfizer. The Motley Fool recommends Moderna. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Where Will Novavax Be in 10 Years? was originally published by The Motley Fool
