This article from Science Translational Medicine shows excellent results in a phase-1 trial of a new hepatitis C vaccine. This is a huge deal: hepatitis C infects 170 million globally, and causes a great deal of the world's liver damage. It kills more people in the US annually than HIV/AIDS.
The new vaccine was developed using chimpanzees as research subjects. I submit that this is exactly the sort of research for which the IOM's recent report on use of chimps in research left room. But I submit, also, that there aren't many more examples of this sort.
Showing posts with label vaccine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vaccine. Show all posts
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Wakefield Sues BMJ Editor for Defamation
Wow. Author of the a now-discredited Lancet article which started a vaccine scare by falsely linking MMR vaccination to autism onset, Andrew Wakefield is suing BMJ's editor, Fiona Godlee, and British investigative journalist Brian Deer, for defamation of his character. The complaint, filed in Travis County, Texas, is here. It focuses fairly narrowly on statements by Godlee and Deer to the effect that Wakefield manipulated or falsified data in the study.
The UK's General Medical Council, after the longest hearing in its history, found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct in connection with the conduct of the research underlying the article, and erased him from its rolls. But they didn't specifically find that he altered data in the study; their main complaint about the article itself was that it mischaracterized the children under study--especially the means by which, and purpose for which, they were recruited. The GMC's findings spoke mainly to other forms of research and clinical misconduct. To review, the GMC found that Wakefield violated the limits of his appointment as an Honorary Consultant in a "breach of trust of patients and employers alike," and mismanaged funds, and failed to disclose "matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest," and conducted research on vulnerable children without required ethics review, and concealed that fact, and repeatedly breached "fundamental principles of research medicine," and acted contrary to the clinical interests of 9 of the 12 children mentioned in the article, and violated his duties as a senior author, and failed to correct his mistakes when given the chance, and made "dishonest and irresponsible" statements to the GMC board itself.
Of course, the fact that Wakefield was unprofessional in a bunch of different ways doesn't mean that he was unprofessional in all of the ways that Godlee or Deer have, at one time or another, alleged. It's just possible that one or the other of them has said something factually wrong by accusing Wakefield of some specific kind of scumbaggery that he didn't actually engage in. If so, may the damages found be very, very small.
Because the damage caused by Wakefield hasn't been small. The publicity around his unethical research likely caused children to die of completely preventable childhood diseases, and is certainly still causing misguided parents to fail to vaccinate their children. It is depressing to note that here, the Autism Action Network is already trumpeting Wakefield's suit against Deer and a woman whom they call "Fiona Godley." Their view is that Wakefield and his co-author John Walker-Smith "had their medical licenses suspended for their refusal to recant their hypothesis." They don't mention the actual GMC findings against Wakefield, nor those against Walker-Smith (which you can read here), nor the fact that in 2004, six years before the GMC acted, Walker-Smith and nine of Wakefield's other co-authors specifically retracted the portion of the paper that posited a link of MMR with autism.
The UK's General Medical Council, after the longest hearing in its history, found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct in connection with the conduct of the research underlying the article, and erased him from its rolls. But they didn't specifically find that he altered data in the study; their main complaint about the article itself was that it mischaracterized the children under study--especially the means by which, and purpose for which, they were recruited. The GMC's findings spoke mainly to other forms of research and clinical misconduct. To review, the GMC found that Wakefield violated the limits of his appointment as an Honorary Consultant in a "breach of trust of patients and employers alike," and mismanaged funds, and failed to disclose "matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest," and conducted research on vulnerable children without required ethics review, and concealed that fact, and repeatedly breached "fundamental principles of research medicine," and acted contrary to the clinical interests of 9 of the 12 children mentioned in the article, and violated his duties as a senior author, and failed to correct his mistakes when given the chance, and made "dishonest and irresponsible" statements to the GMC board itself.
Of course, the fact that Wakefield was unprofessional in a bunch of different ways doesn't mean that he was unprofessional in all of the ways that Godlee or Deer have, at one time or another, alleged. It's just possible that one or the other of them has said something factually wrong by accusing Wakefield of some specific kind of scumbaggery that he didn't actually engage in. If so, may the damages found be very, very small.
Because the damage caused by Wakefield hasn't been small. The publicity around his unethical research likely caused children to die of completely preventable childhood diseases, and is certainly still causing misguided parents to fail to vaccinate their children. It is depressing to note that here, the Autism Action Network is already trumpeting Wakefield's suit against Deer and a woman whom they call "Fiona Godley." Their view is that Wakefield and his co-author John Walker-Smith "had their medical licenses suspended for their refusal to recant their hypothesis." They don't mention the actual GMC findings against Wakefield, nor those against Walker-Smith (which you can read here), nor the fact that in 2004, six years before the GMC acted, Walker-Smith and nine of Wakefield's other co-authors specifically retracted the portion of the paper that posited a link of MMR with autism.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Vaccine Exemptions
This AP story gives a lot of interesting detail on the current parental flight from childhood vaccination. In eight of the US states, over 5% of kids don't get the required vaccinations before kindergarten; their parents exercise the right to exempt them from some or all vaccinations, instead. The exemption rate is up in more than half of all states, but highest in Western and Upper Midwestern states.
Part of the trouble is that some states make it quite simple to exempt a child from vaccination--a note from home alleging a personal opposition to immunization does the trick in Colorado, for example. Some kids need to be exempt for medical reasons, of course, and some accommodation must be made for religious opposition to vaccination; but the response to mere personal or philosophical opposition to immunization should be education, at least in the first instance, rather than surrender. Parents who exempt their children are endangering them and other people as well.
Part of the trouble is that some states make it quite simple to exempt a child from vaccination--a note from home alleging a personal opposition to immunization does the trick in Colorado, for example. Some kids need to be exempt for medical reasons, of course, and some accommodation must be made for religious opposition to vaccination; but the response to mere personal or philosophical opposition to immunization should be education, at least in the first instance, rather than surrender. Parents who exempt their children are endangering them and other people as well.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Anthrax Vaccine Testing in Kids?
It's a post-modern world. Here's the Washington Post's headline on a Friday story: "No testing of anthrax vaccine on children _ for now _ federal advisory board tells regulators." The next day, the San Francisco Chronicle's headline on a story written by a Washington Post reporter reads, "Panel endorses anthrax vaccine test on children." Global Security Newswire's headline? "Panel Urges Ethics Study of Testing Anthrax Vaccine on Minors." And yes, you guessed it, all these articles are about the same report. In fact, the "final draft report" of the National Biodefense Science Board actually recommends the following:
"HHS should develop a plan for and conduct a pre-event study of AVA in children, to include a research IND. HHS should submit the study protocol to one or more IRBs, and comply with the 21 CFR 50.54 / 45 CFR 46.407 federal review process. This recommendation should be revisited if new anthrax vaccines or other therapeutic countermeasures become available."
Translation: do the Anthrax vaccine study in kids after IRB review.
The NBSB report gave considerable attention to the ethics of testing Anthrax vaccine in kids, but it didn't end up "urging an ethics study" or saying "no testing for now." The report takes the position that it's important to understand how the vaccine works in kids before it's used in an emergency--important enough for kids to incur the risks of the trial, given the informed consent of their parents. The recommended trial would begin with older kids and work its way down to lower ages as results come in.
Note that the intended use of the vaccine is not as a routine population-wide prophylactic, since Anthrax isn't infectious. Rather, it would be given to selected people (including children) after they'd been exposed to Anthrax spores, to prevent disease development. Here's the second sentence of the executive summary of the report: "In this emergency scenario, [anthrax vaccine] would be used in conjunction with antibiotics to prevent the development of infection and illness following exposure to anthrax spores, a form of therapy termed “post-exposure prophylaxis." That's why Steven Salzberg's righteous indignation in this Forbes article seems to me to be misplaced; he seems to think that NBSB is contemplating huge and wasteful population-wide vaccination, but it's not.
UPDATE: Here's a nice piece by Art Caplan predicting that the study on kids won't happen. Basically Art is arguing that the likelihood of an anthrax attack is so small, the risks of the vaccine so uncertain, and the likelihood of vaccination being used as a response to an attack so uncertain, that no IRB will ever think the vaccine test has a good enough risk/benefit profile to permit it. Highly recommended!
"HHS should develop a plan for and conduct a pre-event study of AVA in children, to include a research IND. HHS should submit the study protocol to one or more IRBs, and comply with the 21 CFR 50.54 / 45 CFR 46.407 federal review process. This recommendation should be revisited if new anthrax vaccines or other therapeutic countermeasures become available."
Translation: do the Anthrax vaccine study in kids after IRB review.
The NBSB report gave considerable attention to the ethics of testing Anthrax vaccine in kids, but it didn't end up "urging an ethics study" or saying "no testing for now." The report takes the position that it's important to understand how the vaccine works in kids before it's used in an emergency--important enough for kids to incur the risks of the trial, given the informed consent of their parents. The recommended trial would begin with older kids and work its way down to lower ages as results come in.
Note that the intended use of the vaccine is not as a routine population-wide prophylactic, since Anthrax isn't infectious. Rather, it would be given to selected people (including children) after they'd been exposed to Anthrax spores, to prevent disease development. Here's the second sentence of the executive summary of the report: "In this emergency scenario, [anthrax vaccine] would be used in conjunction with antibiotics to prevent the development of infection and illness following exposure to anthrax spores, a form of therapy termed “post-exposure prophylaxis." That's why Steven Salzberg's righteous indignation in this Forbes article seems to me to be misplaced; he seems to think that NBSB is contemplating huge and wasteful population-wide vaccination, but it's not.
UPDATE: Here's a nice piece by Art Caplan predicting that the study on kids won't happen. Basically Art is arguing that the likelihood of an anthrax attack is so small, the risks of the vaccine so uncertain, and the likelihood of vaccination being used as a response to an attack so uncertain, that no IRB will ever think the vaccine test has a good enough risk/benefit profile to permit it. Highly recommended!
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Gostin on HPV Vaccination
The current issue of JAMA contains a brief commentary (subscription required) by Larry Gostin, public-health law-professor extraordinaire, on the politics and history of mandatory vaccination for human papillomavirus ("HPV"). HPV is a sexually-transmitted virus which is responsible for much cervical cancer in women, for a large portion of oral cancers, and for some forms of genital warts. Gostin clearly seems to favor mandatory HPV vaccination, though--given the political heat that's surrounded the HPV vaccination because of its relationship to adolescent sexuality--he's willing to give publicity and public funding a shot at upping the vaccination rates before pushing the mandates. I agree that HPV vaccination would be good for public health, but I worry that an HPV mandate will move some parents (e.g., those who are offended at the state's implication that their child is or will be sexually active) to make serious efforts to exempt their children from all publicly-mandated vaccinations. In other words, an anti-HPV backlash could translate into an anti-vaccine backlash of the sort earlier associated with the vaccine/autism scare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)