Flu Shots, Vaccines, Bird Flu and Swine Flu

A new study conducted by researchers from McMasters University explored the effectiveness of different types of vaccines delivered through the respiratory system. Their findings showed that inhaled vaccines are likely to reach deeper into the respiratory system, which makes them more effective than nasal spray vaccines. 

“Infections in the upper respiratory tract tend to be non-severe,” said researcher Matthew Miller. “In the context of infections caused by viruses like influenza or SARS-CoV-2, it tends to be when the virus gets deep into the lung that it makes you really sick. 

“The immune response you generate when you deliver the vaccine deep into the lung is much stronger than when you only deposit that material in the nose and throat because of the anatomy and nature of the tissue and the immune cells that are available to respond are very different.”  

Better protection from viruses

The researchers put different types of vaccines to the test on animals. They used both an inhaled and nasal spray tuberculosis vaccine and compared the immune responses, general potency of the vaccines, and the distribution of droplets in the animals. 

While both vaccines proved to be effective, the inhaled vaccine provided a much stronger immune response. The researchers explained that the nasal spray vaccine travels to the nose and throat but doesn’t go much further than that in the body. 

The study showed that the inhaled tuberculosis vaccine was more effective because it was able to reach deeper into the respiratory system. With the inhaled vaccine, the immune droplets never settled in the nasal passages. Instead, they traveled farther into the lungs. 

The researchers are currently in the middle of clinical trials that are testing an inhaled COVID-19 vaccine that would work in this way by targeting the respiratory system. 

“This study for the first time provides strong preclinical evidence to support the development of inhaled aerosol delivery over nasal spray for human vaccination against respiratory infections including TB, COVID-19, and influenza,” said researcher Zhou Xing. 

In its mission to keep as many people healthy and safe as possible, Pfizer has announced a major goodwill effort that it calls “Accord for a Healthier World”.

The initiative will provide all of Pfizer's current and future patent-protected medicines and vaccines on a not-for-profit basis to 45 lower-income countries. By taking this step, the company says it could close the health equity gap for more than a billion people.

Rwanda, Ghana, Malawi, Senegal, and Uganda are the first five countries that have committed to joining the Accord. Health officials in these countries will help spot and resolve any hurdles that Pfizer may face so that the company can learn and enhance the rollout in the rest of the lower-income countries.

“As we learned in the global COVID-19 vaccine rollout, supply is only the first step to helping patients. We will work closely with global health leaders to make improvements in diagnosis, education, infrastructure, storage and more. Only when all the obstacles are overcome can we end healthcare inequities and deliver for all patients,” said Pfizer Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Albert Bourla.

The types of medicines Pfizer is providing

Pfizer says its commitment includes 23 medicines and vaccines that treat infectious diseases, certain cancers, and rare and inflammatory diseases. These diseases and conditions affect millions of lives each year in the countries the Accord will serve. As Pfizer develops and launches new medicines and vaccines, it will also make those products available on a not-for-profit basis.

One particular focus will be on Group B Streptococcus, a bacteria that commonly lives in people’s gastrointestinal and genital tracts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the bacteria is not harmful and doesn't make people feel sick most of the time, but it is a leading cause of stillbirth and newborn mortality in low-income countries. Working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Pfizer is also discussing opportunities to support Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine development.

“Everyone, no matter where they live, should have the same access to innovative, life-saving drugs and vaccines,” Bill Gates said. “The Accord for a Healthier World could help millions more people in low-income countries get the tools they need to live a healthy life. Pfizer is setting an example for other companies to follow.”

A new study conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University revealed that the body’s immune response to vaccines could become compromised as consumers age. 

The researchers framed the study in the context of women, who were found to respond better than men to the flu vaccine. However, those stats declined as women aged into menopause, prompting the researchers to rethink the specifics when it comes to giving vaccines to older people. 

“We need to consider tailoring vaccine formulations and dosages based on the sex of the vaccine recipient as well as their age,” said researcher Sabra Klein, PhD. 

Understanding immune health

To get a better understanding of immune health and to see how young women are outperforming older women and their male counterparts, the researchers conducted two studies: one on humans and the other on mice. 

For the first study, participants were divided into two groups based on age: those aged 18-45 and those 65 and older. All participants were given the 2009 H1N1 flu vaccine, after which the researchers analyzed their bodies’ immune response to the injection. 

Younger women had the best immune response, as their bodies produced higher levels of the IL-6 protein, which helps the body limit flu-related inflammation and promotes healthy lung function. The younger women in the study also had a better immune response than all men, but the most significant difference was between younger women and older women. 

When it came to the mice, the researchers analyzed very similar results, as young, female mice had the best outcomes after receiving the flu vaccine when compared with male mice and older mice. The researchers determined that sex hormones played a large role in how older male and female mice responded to the flu vaccine, with levels of estrogen and testosterone are significantly altered in later years. 

Moving forward, the researchers hope that healthcare officials use these findings to alter the way older people receive vaccines, as factors like aging and gender play a role in how the body responds. 

“What we show here is that the decline in estrogen that occurs with menopause impacts women’s immunity,” said Klein. “Until now, this hasn’t been considered in the context of a vaccine. These findings suggest that for vaccines, one size doesn’t fit all -- perhaps men should get larger doses, for example.”

The full study has been published in the journal npj Vaccines.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has released its annual list of the top ten threats to global health. For the first time, vaccine hesitancy -- which the organization defines as the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines -- made the list.

"Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease -- it currently prevents 2-3 million deaths a year, and a further 1.5 million could be avoided if global coverage of vaccinations improved,” the health agency said.

The World Health Organization noted that the increase in vaccine hesitancy, fueled by the anti-vax movement, is partly to blame for the recent resurgence of measles.

The reasons for the 30 percent global increase in cases of measles are “complex, and not all of these cases are due to vaccine hesitancy," WHO said. "However, some countries that were close to eliminating the disease have seen a resurgence."

Ten urgent health threats

"The world is facing multiple health challenges,” the organization stated. “These range from outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles and diphtheria, increasing reports of drug-resistant pathogens, growing rates of obesity and physical inactivity to the health impacts of environmental pollution and climate change and multiple humanitarian crises."

The following list comprises the group’s ten biggest health threats of 2019:

• Air pollution and climate change

• Non-communicable diseases

• Global influenza pandemic

• Fragile and vulnerable settings

• Antimicrobial resistance

• Ebola and other high-threat pathogens

• Weak primary health care

• Vaccine hesitancy

• Dengue

• HIV

Air pollution: the greatest environmental risk

The World Health Organization considers air pollution to be the greatest environmental risk to public health in 2019. Last May, WHO researchers found that air pollution kills seven million people each year.

Breathing in fine particles in polluted air can lead to cancer, stroke, and heart and lung disease, the WHO said. The organization estimated that 90 percent of people worldwide breathe polluted air daily.

Climate change also poses a serious risk to human health. An additional 250,000 deaths are expected to occur each year between 2030 and 2050 due to the interaction between conditions such as malnutrition, malaria, and heat stress.

Getting a flu shot has become pretty standard procedure for many consumers, as it’s a quick and easy way to prevent the flu and its associated health risks -- particularly during the cold winter months.

Though the flu shot can benefit anyone, new research shows why patients with heart failure should ensure they’re vaccinated.

Researchers, led by Daniel Modin of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, explored the ways patients with newly-diagnosed heart failure responded to the flu shot and found that there were countless health benefits.

“Recent studies have indicated that the influenza vaccination coverage of patients with heart failure is inadequate,” said Modin. “I hope that our study can assist in making physicians and cardiologists who care for patients with heart failure aware of how important influenza vaccination is for their patients. Influenza vaccination may be regarded as a standard treatment in heart failure similar to medications.”

Key findings

The researchers studied medical data for over 134,000 patients who were diagnosed with heart failure over the course of 12 years. The study started in 2003, when 16 percent of the participants were getting a flu shot; it ended in 2015, when 52 percent received the shot.

The researchers were most curious as to how the flu shot affected the mortality of patients with new cases of heart failure.

For starters, they found that getting vaccinated early proved to be beneficial for participants. The risk of death decreased when patients were vaccinated earlier during flu season, as opposed to during the heart of flu season.

Perhaps the most significant finding was that the risk of premature death decreased by 18 percent for those who received a flu shot, regardless of any other health complications.

For yearly flu shot recipients, the risk of death -- both heart-related and otherwise -- decreased. Getting a flu shot on a regular basis reduced cardiovascular deaths by eight percent, and all deaths by 13 percent.

The results also proved to hold up over the long term, and showing that flu shot continued to be effective over time. Patients who received flu shots each year following a heart failure diagnosis reduced their risk of death by 19 percent, compared with those who didn’t get a flu shot at all.

Though Modin notes that the study focuses solely on heart failure patients who are newly diagnosed, he’s confident that the flu shot would be beneficial for anyone suffering with heart disease.

Importance of getting vaccinated

Though many parents may be skeptical about having their child get the flu shot, following last year’s high-severity flu season, it can be critical -- especially for those with compromised immune systems.

Earlier this fall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned consumers that they should get vaccinated early in preparation for the heart of flu season. During last flu season, 180 children died from the sickness, and 80 percent of them weren’t vaccinated. Additionally, over 700,000 people landed in the hospital from the flu.

The CDC says that the flu shot is “the best way reduce your risk of getting sick with seasonal flu and spreading it to others.”

Not long after that warning, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged that all children six months and older receive the flu as early as possible.

“The flu virus is common -- and unpredictable,” said Dr. Flor Munoz. “It can cause serious complications even in healthy children. Being immunized reduces the risk of a child being hospitalized due to flu.”

Health officials are warning that this year’s flu season could be worse than previous years, in part due to weaknesses with this year’s batch of vaccines.

Experts also say the fact that Australia had a severe flu season this year suggests we may be in for a harsher-than-usual flu season here in the U.S. Unfortunately, flu season has already gotten off to an early start, which could mean a longer season -- and, in turn, more infected individuals.

Here are some things you can do to stay healthy if you find yourself living under the same roof as someone who has the flu.

Create a sick room

In an interview with ConsumerAffairs, Cindy Weston, assistant professor at Texas A&M College of Nursing, explained that preventing the spread of germs is critical when it comes to keeping everyone else in the house healthy.

“The family member who is ill should stay away from others and stay inside. They need to keep their hands washed,” she said. “They should ‘cover their cough’ and dispose of tissues to help prevent spread.”

Weston adds that family members who aren’t sick should stay well rested, eat well, and give the family member who is ill a private space and quiet area to rest.

Each sick person should have their own drinking glass, washcloth, and towel. Avoid sharing anything with sick family members -- including bathrooms. If you have two bathrooms, designate one to be used only by the sick person.

Protecting yourself

While letting your flu-ridden family member rest and recover, you can tackle a few important cleaning tasks to help prevent the spread of germs.

“Surfaces should be wiped down with diluted bleach water 1:10 ratio,” Weston said. Also be sure to clean bedside tables, doorknobs, and toys (if a child has the flu).

Wash and dry soiled sheets and towels on the “hot” setting and avoid carrying them to the washing machine in your arms -- use a laundry basket instead.

Healthy family members can also take supplements to ward off the illness, Weston noted. Zinc, vitamin C, and echinacea may boost the immune system to help protect against illness.

Once the sick family member is feeling better, be sure to toss his or her toothbrush to avoid reinfection.

Weston added that by the time someone shows symptoms that are clearly a cold or flu, most of the family has already been exposed -- but doing these simple things may limit the exposure and help prevent transmission.

Agents acting on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration have seized what they said are unproven, and "potentially dangerous" stem cell treatments at two California clinics.

The seizures took place at the California Stem Cell Treatment Centers in Rancho Mirage and Beverly Hills, California, where U.S. Marshals said they confiscated five vials of Vaccinia Virus Vaccine (Live) – a vaccine the FDA said belonged to StemImmune Inc. of San Diego. The vaccine has been given to people at high risk for smallpox, such as some members of the U.S. military, but in this case was reportedly being used to treat cancer.

The FDA says Vaccinia Virus Vaccine (Live) is not commercially available, and therefore it is concerned about its origin. The FDA said an active investigation is underway to determine how the company obtained the vaccine.

"StemImmune, a biopharmaceutical company engaged in cutting edge R&D of adult human stem-cell based therapies for the treatment of cancer, is fully cooperating with the FDA about the development of its stem cell-based investigational cancer therapy," the company said in a statement to ConsumerAffairs. "We look forward to continuing our dialogue with the FDA as we seek to bring this important cancer therapy to cancer patients."

"Speaking as a cancer survivor, I know all too well the fear and anxiety the diagnosis of cancer can have on a patient and their loved ones and how tempting it can be to believe the audacious but ultimately hollow claims made by these kinds of unscrupulous clinics or others selling so-called cures," said FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

FDA says cures 'lack proof'

Gottlieb said the agency is concerned that potential cures are being offered vulnerable patients without offering any proof they actually work.

"I especially won't allow cases such as this one to go unchallenged, where we have good medical reasons to believe these purported treatments can actually harm patients and make their conditions worse," he said.

According to the FDA, clinics were using the product by injecting it directly into patents' tumors. The danger, the agency says, is when unvaccinated people are in close contact with someone who has been vaccinated, and are accidentally infected.

For its part, Steminnune notes on its website it provides "a potent new class of immunotherapies to wage a targeted, stealth attack on cancer."

Earlier this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a list of the most dangerous superbugs – which are diseases and infections that have developed a resistance to antibiotics used to treat them. The organization split the pathogens into critical, high, and medium priorities with the hope that researchers would focus on efforts to create better vaccines for them.

Now, a group of U.S. scientists from the Scripps Institute have re-engineered an older vaccine to fight one of the deadliest superbugs, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). This bacterium is often found in hospitals and can fatally infect patients’ bloodstreams.

As the name suggests, VRE is resistant to vancomycin, a drug that has been used for over 60 years. However, researchers say the newest version of the antibiotic they’re testing is over 1,000 times more potent and may be available within the next five years.

“Resistance to such an antibiotic would be very difficult to emerge,” said lead researcher Dr. Dale Boger.

Multiple forms of attack

The Scripps team set out to improve vancomycin to restore its ability to kill VRE. To do that, Boger explains that the researchers had to change the drug at the molecular level to give it more ways to attack harmful bacteria.

“We made one change to the molecule vancomycin that overcomes what is the present resistance to vancomycin. And then we added to the molecule, two small changes that built into the molecule, two additional ways in which it can kill bacteria,” he said. “So the antibiotic has three different, we call them ‘mechanisms,’ by which it kills bacteria…So it’s a molecule designed specifically to address the emergence of resistance.”

Boger goes on to explain that it is very difficult for bacteria to survive from such an attack because even if it comes up with a way to resist one mechanism, it will still die from the other two. Although it has not yet been tested on human or animal models, the researchers believe that it could be the solution to fighting off VRE. Following this model for future antibiotics may also help fight off other types superbugs as well.

“Doctors could use this modified form of vancomycin without fear of resistance emerging,” said Boger. “This development could be hugely important,” added Dr. Nigel Brown of the Microbiology Society.

The full study has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

When medical authorities last year celebrated test results confirming the success of a new Ebola vaccine, the doctors who work on the front lines of the world’s poorest countries warned that the arrangement behind the vaccine’s development must never happen again.

In 2010, the Public Health Agency of Canada granted a small, Iowa-based pharmaceutical company called NewLink Genetics an exclusive patent to develop a vaccine against Ebola, the deadly, highly contagious fever that first erupted in central Africa in 1976.

Government health agencies here and elsewhere will grant a single corporation an exclusive patent to prevent or cure a disease that otherwise might go ignored. The thinking behind these public-private partnerships is that they give corporations an incentive to find cures for rare, unprofitable diseases. But the reality is often something different. 

Under the Ebola deal, NewLink paid $205,00 for the exclusive right to build on research conducted by Canada’s government scientists, who had already found that the Recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus–Zaire Ebola virus, or the VSV-EBOV vaccine for short–could be "highly effective" at preventing the deadly fever.

Nowhere to be seen

But three years later, when a new, devastating Ebola epidemic suddenly emerged in West Africa, the VSV-EBOV vaccine was nowhere to be seen. NewLink genetics had not so much as began Phase I clinical trials. In a race against time, Canada’s public health agency allowed a different company to work on the vaccine that year and then donated 800 vials they had created to the World Health Organization. Finally, as the outbreak ravaged West Africa, Merck & Co. purchased the rights from NewLink in November 2014 and acted quickly to roll out the vaccine. 

By 2015, Canadian scientists were able to administer VSV-EBOV to 5,800 people in Guinea. Research published late last year confirmed that VSV-EBOV is effective. But for the estimated 11,000 people who had already died and the doctors who treated them while NewLink dithered, the vaccine came far too late. 

The story “shows how the Canadian government’s exclusive licensing was unnecessary and tragically delayed urgently needed innovation,” Doctors Without Borders wrote to the United States government in January. “If at least Phase I clinical trials had been conducted prior to the most recent outbreak, the vaccine could have been deployed during the emergency and potentially helped save lives.”

Citing the Ebola example, Doctors Without Borders is now trying to convince the United States Army to back away from a deal that gives French pharmaceutical corporation Sanofi the exclusive patent to develop a vaccine against the Zika virus. “Based on our experience, leaving these decisions exclusively to a pharmaceutical company may not lead to appropriate public health outcomes,” Doctors Without Borders writes.

Some lawmakers object

A group of Congressional Democrats and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have already been outspoken about their objections to the Army’s proposal. They argue that granting Sanofi an exclusive deal and limiting the competition isn’t necessary to encourage innovation in this case, because pharmaceutical executives have already described the dollar signs in their eyes at the thought of a blockbuster Zika cure.

Even Sanofi acknowledges this much. “It’s important to note that dozens of other companies, many with funding from the US government, are also developing Zika vaccine candidates, some using similar approaches, others using other novel technologies,” Sanofi spokesman Ashleigh Koss writes to ConsumerAffairs. She says that winning the license from the United States government does not hinder competitors from selling a Zika vaccine in the United States that is “based on alternative technologies.” 

But front-line doctors and the objecting lawmakers do not want any potential Zika cure, be it Sanofi's or a competitor's “alternative technology,” to belong in the hands of one company. “In order to ensure that the investment made by taxpayers was worthwhile, it is critical that we ensure the vaccine to prevent against the Zika virus is accessible to anyone who requires it,” a small group of Democratic lawmakers wrote to the Army earlier this year.

At the very least, the Democrats who protested asked that the Army demand Sanofi set its Zika vaccine at a price that is affordable. But Sanofi has rejected even that request. In late April, the Department of Defense ignored the concerns and announced that it planned to grant Sanofi an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, though the details are still being finalized and critics are quickly filing appeals. 

Sanofi says taxpayers will get royalties

Stat News reported last Wednesday that Sanofi has declined to agree to price controls on its Zika vaccine. “It is unacceptable that Sanofi has rejected the Army’s request for fair pricing,” the office of Senator Bernie Sanders told Stat News in a statement. “American taxpayers have already spent more than $1 billion on Zika research and prevention efforts,” an amount that includes a $43 million grant that Congress approved to fund Sanofi’s vaccine specifically. 

On May 10, Republican Louisiana Governor Robert Speer joined the fray of concerned politicians. In letter to the Army, Speer described his state’s vulnerability to tropical diseases such as Zika, and the necessity for an affordable vaccine. “A decision to give one company, Sanofi, a monopoly, without any constraints on the price of the vaccine, could cripple state budgets and threaten public health in the event of local Zika transmission,” Speer wrote. He noted that up to 540,000 Louisiana residents are currently on Medicaid. 

Sanofi argues that it is "premature" for people to discuss the price of the Zika vaccine. “At this time, it is premature to consider or predict Zika vaccine pricing at this early stage of development,” Sanofi spokesman Ashleigh Koss writes to ConsumerAffairs. “In fact, the Phase 2 trials won’t even start until early 2018.”

But what about the taxpayers who gave Sanofi $43 million to fund the research into its vaccine, and are likely to hand over another reported $130 million? Sanofi suggests that American taxpayers will recover their investment because Sanofi might to give the United States government some royalties and “milestone payments” if the vaccine is licensed and “successful."

“Historically under the terms a licensing agreement, Sanofi would provide WRAIR [Walter Reed Army Institute of Research] with milestone payments, and if successful, royalties too if a vaccine candidate is licensed. The US government and taxpayers recover their investment,” Koss writes to ConsumerAffairs. 

Sanofi does not specify how much those royalties and milestone payments would be, should Sanofi even commit to pay them. "The details of a potential licensing agreement are still being discussed, and as noted earlier these discussions continue to be ongoing," Koss says.

NewLink still made millions off Ebola

Pharmaceutical companies can make millions off of exclusive licenses, even when they do not actually help administer the vaccine or save any lives. During the Ebola outbreak, NewLink actually profited enormously after their product reportedly sat on shelves for years. As panic over the Ebola virus spread through 2014, NewLink was able its exclusive rights to Merck for tens of millions more than they had paid the Canadian government. 

“This wasted opportunity and failure to advance the vaccine’s development nevertheless netted NewLink more than $63.5M profit when they sold the rights to pharmaceutical company Merck during the most critical phase of the outbreak,” Doctors Without Borders wrote to the United States Army. A more competitive license would have encouraged NewLink and other companies to work faster to develop the vaccine, the group argues.  

“A non-exclusive license could have allowed the Canadian government, either prior to or during the outbreak, to take more decisive action to encourage or require the timely testing and development of the vaccine.” Doctors without Borders similarly pressed the United States to consider a non-exclusive license for the Zika vaccine. 

Through a spokesman, NewLink declined to comment on their role in potentially hindering the introduction of VSV-EBOV. 

As we reported recently, researchers are coming ever closer to developing a vaccine for the Zika virus. But new findings from the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences may throw a wrench into what we thought we knew about the disease.

Associate professor of entomology Chelsea Smartt and her research team recently discovered Zika RNA in a species of mosquito that was previously unconnected to the virus. This could be bad news for consumers, since a greater number of infectious mosquitoes may make containing and targeting the disease more difficult.

Previously, researchers had only found Zika in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, but Smartt and her team discovered that the virus was also present in newly-hatched Aedes albopictus mosquitoes.

"These results are important because they are the first to show that Aedes albopictus can be infected with Zika virus RNA. . . this study found Zika virus RNA in male mosquitoes, which we can infer also means the Zika virus RNA came from the mother. We need to determine if live Zika virus can also be transmitted in Aedes albopictus," said Smartt.

Dangerous birth defect

Zika virus first gained a foothold in Latin America and has since spread throughout South and Central America. Efforts to contain the disease in the U.S. have been met with mixed results; a recent report detailed that it had spread to 44 states.

The virus can cause fever-like symptoms, but the biggest danger it poses is the microcephaly birth defect that can be passed on to the unborn children of pregnant women. The defect affects brain development and can cause a range of neurologic conditions.

The researchers discovered that Zika RNA had jumped to Aedes albopictus mosquitoes after studying the species in Camacari, Brazil. The team collected 20 female and 19 male Aedes albopictus mosquito eggs and raised them to adulthood. After they had fully grown, the researchers analyzed them and found that they tested positive for Zika RNA.

Protect yourself

The findings indicate that different species of mosquitoes living an area with a high Zika virus density can contain the virus, even if the species had not previously been connected with the disease. The researchers are uncertain if Aedes albopictus mosquitoes can transmit Zika virus to humans, but they caution that consumers should take extra measures to avoid being bitten.

Consumers can protect themselves from mosquito bites by staying indoors during the day when mosquitoes are most active. Wearing long-sleeve pants and shirts when going outdoors, applying approved mosquito repellents, and emptying any standing water where mosquitoes can breed is also recommended.

The full study has been published in the Journal of Medical Entomology.

Convincing consumers to get their vaccinations has been more difficult in recent years. Reports suggest that fewer people are receiving their flu shots, and some researchers point to recent resurgences of diseases like the measles as proof that other vaccinations are going by the wayside.

But would consumers change their ways if vaccines were more effective and protected against more diseases? If so, then there may be good news to report in the near future. Researchers at the Boston University School of Medicine recently purified a protein that they say helps improve vaccines’ effectiveness and may protect against more serious diseases like cancer.

"This study has wide implications as it could not only be used to help the body identify and fight off bacterial infections, but it could also potentially help the body use its own machinery to fight off other diseases like cancer, HIV, and influenza before they have a chance to establish within the body," said corresponding author Dr. Lee Wetzler.

Creating better vaccines

The protein in question, called PorB, is found on the exterior of certain bacteria and is unique because it provides two types of protections. The study authors explain that usually vaccines work by either increasing the body’s antibody production or stimulating T cells to kill foreign contaminants. PorB, they say, does both.

In the team’s study, the researchers analyzed two experimental models that were given similar vaccinations. One model was given a mix of the vaccination with PorB, while the other received a pure vaccination without PorB.

The researchers found that the mixed vaccination stimulated a greater response than the pure vaccine, as evidenced by the increased number of activated cells and the greater production of cytotoxic T cells. The researchers say that this finding increases understanding of how substances added to vaccines affect immune responses, and it may represent the first step in a new way of crafting vaccines.

"The antigen formulation with PorB triggers a sequence of cellular events at the periphery and in lymphoid tissue that are critical for the establishment of protection to a broad array of infectious diseases, and maybe for other diseases like cancer," said Wetzler.

The full study has been published in Scientific Reports.