#MSCOVID19 – AstraZenca Vaccine Update

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★

In response to a comment from one of our readers. We have not directly addressed the thrombosis AstraZeneca vaccine issue as we are not vaccinologists or haematologists. But as there seems to a lot of anxiety around this issue a short blog post about the potential risks may allay your fears.

I received the following email, from Professor Marcel Levy (Consultant Haematologist and CEO, UCLH), on the 19th of March that suggests the underlying thrombotic disorder that has been recognised in patients who have received the Oxford-AstraZenca COVID-19 vaccine may be quite specific and identifiable. 

19th March

Dear Colleagues

I am taking a rather peculiar step but I think it is important to get this premature information out in the open for the potential benefit of patients.

We have found a strong clue about what is causing the rare thrombosis and thrombocytopenia in patients who received the COVID-19 vaccination. We have to be extremely careful because it is pending some more confirmation but there may be immediate implications for patients we cannot ignore. I know some others may be thinking in the same direction but are awaiting to publish the findings in a journal but we feel it takes too long and I think it is not responsible not sharing this with others as soon as possible.

We have identified three UK cases who developed rare (cerebral sinus vein) thrombosis in London after COVID-19  vaccination and Marie Scully of UCLH has identified a very strong anti-platelet factor 4 antibody response in those patients. They were not exposed to heparin before but you may realise Ted Warkentin has described incidental cases a few years ago (Warkentin TE, Basciano PA, Knopman J, Bernstein RA. Spontaneous heparin-induced thrombocytopenia syndrome: 2 new cases and a proposal for defining this disorder. Blood. 2014 Jun 5;123(23):3651-4.). We feel it may be a good idea if others are confronted with these patients to do a HIT-ELISA and to withhold heparin until we know whether this is real or a false lead and awaiting further confirmation.

Just want to emphasise that we all realise this is extremely rare and should not be a reason to stop vaccination whatsoever. However, when confronted with a case, this may have consequences for their optimal treatment.

Please feel free to share this information within your communities as you may seem fit, as it might have implications for patients (once again, I think we need to be very careful of course before jumping to conclusions).  I know we all want to be the first to publish, but we also have a responsibility for our patients.

All credits to Marie Scully who has done this test in these patients and is happy to share with everyone.

Best wishes, Marcel Levi
Prof. Marcel Levi MD PhD FRCP 
Professor of Medicine, University College London
Professor of Medicine, University of Amsterdam
Consultant in Acute & Vascular Medicine and Haematology 

Although we can’t be sure these thromboses are due to the AstraZenca vaccine it seems increasingly likely that they are as these sorts of thromboses have not been seen (yet) or described with the Pfizer-BionTech and other COVID-19 vaccines. According to the latest figures from the MHRA, there have been 22 reports of a blood clot or thrombosis in the brain called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) accompanied by a low platelet count (as described in the letter above) as well as eight reports of other blood clotting problems with low platelets, among recipients of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Of these 30 reported cases, seven people have died. The denominator is over 18 million people who have received the vaccine. At the moment the rate of this complication is 1.7 people per million vaccinated and one death for every 2.6M people vaccinated. These estimates are likely to be under-estimates because of a reporting lag, but even if the risk increase by a factor of 2 or 3 they will still be relatively low. This risk needs to be compared to 1 in 1000 chance of dying from COVID-19 if you are aged between 40 and 50 years of age.

You have to realise that when you are vaccinating the whole adult population shit is still happening in the background; i.e. people will be getting DVTs, pulmonary emboli, myocardial infarctions, pneumonia, Bell’s palsy, strokes, CVSTs, etc. Life and biology continue as normal and all that has changed is that a vaccine is added to the mix. So when the EMA and MHRA say the benefits of these vaccines, including the AstraZeneca vaccine, outway the risks they mean it and their advice is based on safety data from tens of millions of vaccinated adults and a risk:benefit analysis. The latter is a judgment call they make on the impact of COVID-19 at a population level vs. the population benefits of vaccination. Their message can’t be any clearer: #GetVaccinatedASAP and these #VaccinesAreSafe. I think these figures speak for themselves and I fear we are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing the AstraZeneca vaccine as being too risky to use in certain population groups.

If you have any doubts about the benefits of being vaccinated or not being vaccinated just look at what is happening in France and Germany at the moment compared to the UK. My question is how many extra deaths are going to have happened because of delayed vaccinations in these countries? I suspect orders of magnitude more people will die from COVID-19 than from the rare complications of the COVID-19 vaccines. Do you agree?

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

Russian Roulette

If you were invited to play Russian roulette would you do it with COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccine?

Russian roulette is a lethal game of chance; you place a single round in a revolver, you spin the cylinder, place the muzzle of the gun against your head before pulling the trigger in hope that the loaded chamber does not align with the firing pin, which would cause the revolver to fire and kill you.

Most people would argue Russian roulette is a voluntary game and that you can opt-out of playing it if you want. This is not the case with COVID-19 Russian roulette. You can either become immune by being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or by having one of the COVID-19 vaccines. As this virus is going nowhere soon and is likely to mutate and become endemic, i.e. remain circulating in the human population forever, you will at some stage get infected with this coronavirus or one of its variants. Yes, at some point everyone who is not self-isolating as a hermit on a deserted island will get some form of COVID-19. So you need to decide: do you want to take your chances with COVID-19 and the morbidity (sickness) and mortality (death) associated with it or have one of the COVID-19 vaccines. In other words, you need to choose your poison

For example, if you are between 40 and 50 years of age you have about 1 in 1000 chance of dying from COVID-19, a 1 in 300 chance of needing a ventilator or ITU admission, a 1 in 100 chance of needing to be hospitalised and 1 in 10 chance of getting long-COVID. On the other hand, if you have the vaccine you have about an 80% chance of getting a sore arm and some minor flu-like symptoms for a few days after the vaccine and if you have advanced MS you may notice a transient worsening of symptoms, similar to what happens when you have an infection and a temperature. These symptoms can largely be prevented or made milder by taking paracetamol and/or ibuprofen prophylactically. But the risk of the vaccine revolver firing and you developing a major rare potential complication from one of the vaccines is so small (probably in the order of 1 in 100,000 or even 1 in a million) that it can’t be compared to the risks of COVID-19.

Please remember that the very rare reported adverse events such as blood clots, disseminated coagulation. immune thrombocytopenia, transverse myelitis, sudden death, etc. have not necessarily been caused by the vaccine, they may simply be what is happening as part of the background rate of these disorders in the general population. You have to realise that when you are vaccinating the whole adult population shit will still be happening in the background; i.e. people will be getting DVTs, pulmonary emboli, myocardial infarctions, pneumonia, Bell’s palsy, etc. Life and biology continue as normal and all that has changed is that a vaccine is added to the mix. So when the EMA and MHRA say the benefits of these vaccines outway the risks; their advice is based on safety data from tens of millions of vaccinated adults. Their message can’t be any clearer: #GetVaccinated these #VaccinesAreSafe.

The European politicians have been irresponsible and simply stoked the fears people already have about these and other vaccines. This will not only cost European lives but will impact the uptake of vaccines in low and middle-income countries as well. This is tragic as the Astra-Zenica vaccine is the one that is going to play a major role in stopping the pandemic in these countries. Why do politicians employ and pay experts to work for the European Medicines Agency when they simply ignore their advice? Is there a more cynical or political reason to explains their motivation?

Now getting back to the point I made at the beginning of this post; if you are forced to play Russian roulette would you do it with COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccine?

I promised myself not today any more COVID-19 blog posts, but one of our MS nurses asked me to write this post. Hopefully, this will be the last one I do ;-(

Age-specfic mortality:
Levin et al. Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications. European Journal of Epidemiology volume 35, pages1123–1138(2020).

COVID-19 Severity and ITU admissions:
Pijls et al. Demographic risk factors for COVID-19 infection, severity, ICU admission and death: a meta-analysis of 59 studies. BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 11;11(1):e044640.

Long COVID-19:
ONS. The prevalence of long COVID symptoms and COVID-19 complications. 20-Dec-2020
Around 1 in 5 respondents testing positive for COVID-19 exhibit symptoms for a period of 5 weeks or longer
Around 1 in 10 respondents testing positive for COVID-19 exhibit symptoms for a period of 12 weeks or longer

Oxford-AstraZeneca adverse event profile:
Voysey et al. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet. 2021 Jan 9;397(10269):99-111.

Are you tired of COVID-19 blog posts? If yes, then this letter is for you

Dear Blog Reader

I spent 15 minutes on the phone with one of my patients who has secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. She was an avid blog reader but has stopped reading the blog because she can’t stand the constant barrage of posts about COVID-19 and vaccinations and she doesn’t understand the posts anymore. I think some other readers may share her views.

This patient’s real concerns are about her MS and why she has deteriorated so much over the last 12 months. Is it neglect? Is it because she has stopped her weekly physiotherapy and pilates sessions? Is her MS active? The last time we imaged her in late 2019 there were no new lesions on her brain MRI. For your information, she was treated with off-label subcutaneous cladribine 4 years ago having failed interferon-beta and fingolimod in the past.

Has she deteriorated because of her worsening depression? She is lonely and lives alone. Prior to COVID-19, she used to work 2-3 days a week for a charity, with lots of contact with the public; this brought purpose to her life. Now she has face-time calls with her ageing parents once a day.

Is her deterioration due to her poor sleep? Her recurrent UTIs? Or is due to premature ageing?

Has she lost confidence in walking because of repeated falls? She now uses her wheelchair almost all day indoors.

I spent some time explaining to her that as soon as we can we will repeat her MRI and if she has new lesions she may become eligible for siponimod treatment. In the interim, I have referred her for screening for the MS-STAT-2, or high-dose simvastatin, trial and I sent her a link to the following blog post which tries to explain to pwMS why they are getting worse despite being NEDA or ‘inactive’.

EXPLAINING WHY YOU GET WORSE DESPITE BEING NEDA

Does this lady’s story sound familiar to you? Have you also noticed your MS worsening over the last 12 months during lockdown? In addition, are you also COVIDed-out? If yes, any recommendations on what content you want us to cover on the blog would be much appreciated?

Hang in there if you can, the storm is beginning to subside. If you are feeling low I would recommend reading or listening to Charlie Mackesy’s book, ‘The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse’; it has kept me sane over the last 12 months.


I am thinking of all of you. I know how hard it is but we will get through this together.

Thank you.

Prof G

#MSCOVID19: transverse myelitis is not a reason to avoid being vaccinated

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★★

I am getting an increasing number of emails and direct messages on social media platforms about the transverse myelitis (TM) risk and COVID-19 vaccines; in particular the Oxford-AstraZeneca (Ox-AZ) vaccine. Some of the people who have contacted me have decided to forgo the vaccine and take their chances with COVID-19 and its potential sequelae. 

I want to stress that at present the link between COVID-19 vaccination and TM is very tenuous and arguably not there. Contrary to what misinformation is out there 3 cases of TM did not occur in relation to the Ox-AZ vaccine. This is the data as presented by the EMA in their ‘COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant]) RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN’:

“There were 3 serious adverse events (SAEs) of demyelinating disease: 2 cases in the Ox-AZ group (1 case of transverse myelitis, and 1 case of multiple sclerosis in a participant with pre-existing, but previously unrecognised, multiple sclerosis), and 1 case of myelitis in the control group.” (EMA-ChAdOx1-S RMP)

It is important to realise that the subject with MS had signs of MS disease activity that predated vaccination, i.e. the vaccine did not cause the MS. This means that the two cases of TM were balanced between the Ox-AZ and the control arm (meningococcal vaccine).  

So the cynical anti-Vaxxers will argue that the TM is simply due to vaccination and a strong argument not to be vaccinated. So how common is TMTM post-vaccination?  

“The association between vaccines and acute demyelinating events has been assessed in a range of studies and expert reviews, including a population-based analysis of nearly 64 million vaccine doses in the US, which concluded that if there is an association between transverse myelitis and vaccines, it is < 2 per million doses of live-zoster and live-attenuated influenza vaccines, and < 1 per million doses for other vaccines (Baxter et al 2016). Moreover, demyelinating diseases occur more frequently with infections than with vaccination (Miravalle et al 2010). Taken together, the evidence is inconclusive regarding a causal relationship between contemporary vaccines and acute demyelinating events (Principi and Esposito 2020, Mouchet et al 2018, Phillips et al 2018).” (EMA-ChAdOx1-S RMP)

I suspect that TM post-COVID-19 will turn out to be commoner than TM post-COVID-19-vaccination. I have already done a blog post about the former, i.e. TM occurring in people who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The annual incidence of TM ranges from 1.34 to 4.60 cases per million but increases to 24.6 cases per million if acquired demyelinating diseases like MS and neuromyelitis optica (NMO) are included. The John Hopkins COVID-19 site states that worldwide over 300M people have already received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and over 30M have received two doses as of the 8th March 2021. I think this number of COVID-19 vaccinations would be sufficient to see a TM signal. The one signal that we thought may have emerged was Bell’s palsy, but the number of cases seems to be in keeping with the background rate in the general population. Bell’s palsy was seen in the phase 3 Ox-AZ trial, but again the number of events was balanced. 

“Nonserious AEs of facial paralysis occurred in 3 participants in the Ox-Az group and 3 participants in the control group.” (EMA-ChAdOx1-S RMP)

“The MHRA continues to review cases reporting Bell’s Palsy and to analyse case reports against the number expected to occur by chance in the absence of vaccination (the ‘natural rate’). The number of reports of facial paralysis received so far is similar to the expected natural rate and does not currently suggest an increased risk following the vaccines. We will continue to monitor these events, including through the evaluation of electronic healthcare record data.” (MHRA Coronavirus vaccine – weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting, 4th March 2021)

The MHRA safety data has not shown a TM signal with either of the vaccines and that is now with millions of doses of vaccine given. 

Please remember a lot of patients with TM go onto develop MS. Thousands of people with MS have now had one of the vaccines and the last I had heard only 6 relapses had been reported to the MHRA; a very low number considering how many MS relapses occur in the UK every year. No signal has emerged in Israel either with TM or MS relapses post COVID-19 vaccination. The one caveat about Israel’s data is that it is dominated by the Pfizer-BionTech vaccine. 

As the plan is to vaccinate the whole adult population there will be people who get TM post-vaccination. This will happen by chance. Unless there are large numbers of cases of TM, as what happened with Guillain-Barre Syndrom (GBS) after the H1N1 flu vaccine, it will be very difficult to prove causation. 

Nobody is being forced to be vaccinated. If you don’t want to be vaccinated just say no, but if you decided not to be vaccinated you need to realise that you are likely at some point to get COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 is almost certain to become an endemic viral infection, i.e. the virus won’t disappear. So you need to think about the risks that getting COVID-19 entails. In general, most people who get COVID-19 are likely to get mild to moderate disease, but there are no guarantees that you won’t get the severe disease with the potential to die. Then there is the issue of long COVID-19, which affects about 10% of people who get COVID-19. So not having the vaccine has it own risks.

My advice remains the same: #GetVaccinated ASAP; TM is not a reason to avoid the vaccines and it is not a reason to avoid the Ox-AZ vaccine either. 

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

MS and the Inverse Care Law at 50

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★

Variation in access to good medical care and better outcomes has never been higher in high-income countries such as the UK. Variation is simply a euphemism for inequality. The MS community in the UK realised this a few years ago, which prompted us to launch our ‘Raising the Bar’ initiative to address inequality in access to healthcare for people with MS living in the UK.

With this as a backdrop, it is worth reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the publication of  Julian Tudor Hart’s paper “The Inverse Care Law”, which was published in The Lancet on the 27th Februrary 1971. The article opens with the following lines: 

“The availability of good medical care tends to vary with the need for it in the population served. This inverse care law operates more completely where medical care is most exposed to market forces, and less so where such exposure is reduced.”

The Lancet is celebrating the 50th anniversary of the publication of Hart’s seminal paper with a hard-hitting editorial, which I would urge you to read. 

Editorial. 50 years of the inverse care law. Lancet 27th Feb 2021.

Excerpts:

…. Globally, letting market forces dictate health care is still a major contributor to inequity—private health care can only be accessed by those who can afford to pay.

….. In many countries, social care and long-term care are managed by private providers too. 

….. Although health care is widely endorsed as a basic human right, the systems that provide it inequitably embody capitalism at its worst, where the wealthy benefit, leaving behind those most in need.

What are we trying to do with our ‘Raising the Bar’ initiative? We simply want no patient with MS to left behind. Our programme of activities has coalesced around five main workstreams. 

(1) The ‘Data & Audit’ workstream is focusing on measuring the wide variation in MS services in the UK. We hope the data will then be used as a catalyst for change, i.e. new business cases for service development.

(2) The ‘Patients as partners’ workstream is the improve health literacy amongst pwMS;p to help them navigate the NHS. There is compelling data showing that people with chronic disease who are engaged with their disease and its management do better, both in terms of health outcomes and improved quality of life. Similarly, when it comes to self-monitoring, self-management and behavioural interventions, which will be essential to transform MS outcomes we will need pwMS to become true partners in raising the bar.

(3) The ‘Wellness, lifestyle & social determinants of health’ workstream is promoting the holistic management of MS. This workstream focuses on wellness and lifestyle interventions to maximise brain and physical health. This workstream is also working on ways the MS community can address the social determinants that dominate health outcome in other disease areas; we are sure it is no different in MS.

(4) We acknowledge that if we want no patient to be left behind we are going to need a new generation of leaders; people with the vision, energy and drive to make the changes necessary to make our MS services equitable and valuable. This is why we have launched a ‘leadership programme’ to provide HCPs working in MS with the necessary leadership skills. Yes, not everybody is born a leader. Effective leadership skills need to be learnt. 

(5) Finally, we have a workstream that addresses UK infrastructure such as ‘national registers and research’ studies that will provide the evidence base to change or implement new practices across the country. 

So if you are a healthcare professional working in MS you need to please join the MS Academy and become a part of our raising the bar initiative. With the waning of the COVID-19 pandemic the NHS promises to be more responsive to innovation, more inclusive and wants to address both inequality and it causes. I think there is no better time than now to make a difference. 

If you want to hear more about what we are trying to do please log into the MS Trust’s virtual conference. In the Q&A session tomorrow afternoon we will be addressing many of these issues.

The following are my discussion points for my brief 10-minute introduction.

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

#MSCOVID19: specifically for NHS England

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★★★★

Early on in the pandemic, I did a blog post on why I thought oral cladribine was the ideal DMT for managing MS (26-April-2020) remotely. I summarised cladribine’s attributes in a simple 12-point list. This list can now be updated to include (1) data on good COVID-19 outcomes in pwMS who have been treated with cladribine, (2) about vaccine readiness, i.e. pwMS vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine make a good antibody response and (3) on its cost-effectiveness and value.

The Mouse Doctor prodded me by email yesterday to ask NHS England to allow us to use cladribine more liberally because of the pandemic and the unique challenges it is placing on MS services. MD suggests using or at least offering it 1st-line to patients with just active MS and not only those with highly-active disease. I can’t really do what MD wants because NHS England has a process for changing its advice. I also need to remind MD that as the principal investigator on the phase 3 CLARITY study I am so conflicted that nobody would take anything I say seriously. Hence an updated blog post.

Cladribine’s pros:

Cladribine is a high-efficacy DMT therefore it potentially allows you to flip the pyramid and offer it first-line.

Cladribine is an oral therapy; hence no visits to COVID-19 hot hospitals or institutions.

Cladribine kills cells gradually by a process called apoptosis. Cells dying from apoptosis are phagocytosed or swallowed by macrophages and as a result, there is no cell lysis or bursting open of the cells and the release of their contents that causes a cytokine release syndrome. This means there is no need to pre-treat patients with steroids, which we try to avoid because they increase your chances of getting severe COVID-19. 

Cladribine does not deplete monocytes and neutrophils and has a moderate impact on so-called NK cells. As the innate immune system is left intact there is a low risk of bacterial and other infections during the depletion phase and the innate cells can help fight viral infections, such as SARS-CoV-2.

T lymphocytes are in general depleted by about 40%-50% and most patients don’t drop their counts below 500/mm3. In the phase 3 programme about a quarter of patients had a grade 3 or 4 lymphopaenia, but this tended to occur after the second course in year 2 in subjects who were redosed when their lymphocyte counts had not recovered to above 800/mm3. We have used the trial data to model grade 3 and 4 lymphopaenia. I.e. less than 500/mm3, and estimate that less 5% of cladribine treated subjects will develop lymphocyte counts less than 500/mm3 if we stick to the redosing guidelines. This is very important as lymphopaenia is probably the most important risk factor for viral and severe viral infections. 

In the T-cell compartment, the CD8+ T-cells were less effected than CD4+ T-cells. This is important because CD8+ T-cells are the cells responsible for fighting viral infections. This probably explains, apart from a small risk of herpes zoster reactivation, why we didn’t see an increase in viral infections compared to placebo in cladribine treated subjects in the phase 3 trial programme. The viral infections that did occur tended to be non-specific upper respiratory tract infections and were mild to moderate. In fact, the infection profile on cladribine, including the zoster signal, was much more similar to that which we see with ocrelizumab compared to alemtuzumab. 

Cladribine-treated pwMS who get COVID-19 are not at increased risk of getting severe COVID-19.

Cladribine is a remarkably good depleter of B-cells. B-cells number drop quicker than T-cells numbers; i.e. within days to weeks. In addition, B-cells are depleted by about 85-90% and importantly memory B-cells are severely depleted and to a similar level that we see with alemtuzumab. Importantly, when the B-cell numbers return these are so-called naive B-cells, which come from the bone marrow and are not memory B-cells. These are the cells you need to make vaccine responses.

Please note that because ocrelizumab and rituximab are given as maintenance or continuous therapy there is a small increase in the incidence of serious infections over with time and the development of hypogammaglobulinaemia. This is not seen with cladribine. Once the immune system reconstitutes post-cladribine it can fight infections, immune survey the body for cancers and mount immune responses to new viral infections, such as SARS-CoV-2, and vaccines.

In relation to vaccines both live and inactivated component vaccines can be given after cladribine. New data indicates that cladribine-treated with MS make good antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines (see vaccine post from yesterday).

The other important thing about cladribine is the monitoring requirements are low. Once you have had a course you only need a full blood count to be done at month 4 and 7 in each treatment year. The rationale for this is that the 4-month time-point is where the nadir occurs and the 7-month time point is to check for recovery of lymphocyte counts.

When you look at how cladribine works, i.e. it needs to be activated by an enzyme call DCK (deoxycytidine kinase) and broken down by an enzyme called ADA (adenosine deaminase), the profile of cells expressing the correct ratio of these enzymes matches the B-cell population that expresses CD19 and CD20 and explains why B-cells are more susceptible to the effects of cladribine than T-cells. 

Another advantage of cladribine is that as a small molecule it penetrates the CNS. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels are about 25% of what is found in the peripheral blood and at a level that would target B- and T-cells within the brain and spinal cord. I think this property of cladribine is very important and is one of the reasons why we are exploring cladribine as a treatment for progressive MS in the CHARIOT-MS trial. 

Please note that I am not saying cladribine is entirely safe. It has a well-defined risk-benefit profile that is less risky than what has been suggested by many people. These risk-benefit profiles simply allow you to counsel patients with active MS about their treatment options during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Oral cladribine is cost-effective. NHS England has negotiated a value-based pricing deal with the manufacturer for a rebate if anyone treated with cladribine switches to another agent within 4-years of starting treatment. This makes cladribine a very good option; you are only paying for the drug if it is effective. Isn’t this the future of pharmaceutical drug pricing?

We think cladribine is a highly effective therapy that has many positive attributes for managing MS during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

P.S. MD adds Point 17. Risk of PML in JC+ individuals is low (Thanks Jason)

Do you agree? 

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                         Medium: @gavin_24211

#MSCOVID19: Vaccine Q&A page is now live

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★★★★

Just to let you know that the I have answered all the reasonable questions that have come in via the COVID-19 decision aid. To keep it simple and to allow me to be more responsive I will simply update the online document every day or so. This is similar to what I did with the MS-Selfie Microsite I ran for at the beginning of the pandemic.

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

#MSCOVID19: Vaccine Decision Aid ver. 2.0

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★★★★

Thank you for the feedback on my rough-and-ready decision aid. It is clear there is a need for it. I have spent a bit of time adding DMT-specific pages to the aid and added sections on ‘Which vaccine?’ and ‘Pregnancy’. I have also added a page with useful links. I have also set the sound to be on-demand rather than being automatic; so you need to click on the icon if you want to hear me talk to the question or topic on a specific slide.

Please note this is still a beta version, albeit version 2.0, using the Google Slide’s technology as an easy-to-use platform for prototyping. I will continue to update the decision aid as questions come in. The survey results are quite telling in that you prefer a text document in a downloadable format and a web application. Now I need a grant to be able to pay our ClinicSpeak design team to make this beautiful and more user-friendly.

Your feedback is very much appreciated so keep the comments coming in. Thanks.

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

#MSCOVID19: What is vaccination?

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★★★★

What is vaccination? A not so simple medical procedure.

Vaccination is probably one of, if not, the most important scientific/medical inventions in modern history. We need to celebrate it for just that and appreciate the number of saved lives and improved quality of life it has brought to us as a species. 

Now that we broadly know how the immune system functions there is nothing magic, dark or sinister about vaccines and vaccinations work. 

Vaccines simply hijack components of the immune system and fool it into thinking you are being invaded by something foreign and dangerous, e.g viruses, bacteria, parasites, toxins, cancers or foreign bodies. The immune system reacts to the vaccine and rejects the foreign component in the vaccine, but in doing so the immune system remembers the foreign component so in the event of being exposed to it again in the future it can respond to it quickly and prevent it causing too much damage, i.e. disease or some cases death. 

The immune system is primarily responsible for keeping us safe from infectious agents, i.e. parasites (e.g. malaria), bacteria (e.g. pneumococcus) and viruses (e.g. coronaviruses), toxins and cancer. Immune systems are endowed with the ability to remember a previous exposure to an infectious agent. 

Immunological memory is hardwired into our DNA, which includes so-called pathogen-associated or damage-associated recognition receptors (PAMPs or DAMPs). PAMPs and DAMPs are part of our innate immunity and provide a very rapid response to infections. However, as there is an arms race between our immune system and the pathogens, which can mutate and evolve very quickly (e.g. the UK/Kent, South African and Brazilian variants of SARS-CoV-2), we have had to evolve a second or an acquired memory system called adaptive immunity. The latter involves both B-cells or antibodies and T-cells or killer cells that are able to destroy the pathogen using highly targeted mechanisms that in most people don’t cause collateral damage to the body. 

All that a vaccine does is expose the immune system to a part of the whole of the pathogen in the correct context so the immune system remembers the pathogen so that when it is exposed to the pathogen in real-life it can mount a rapid immune response, which prevents you becoming infected and spreading the organism, or prevents you from getting a severe disease or dying from the infection. 

Now there are many different ways of fooling the immune system into remembering the organism. In the past, we used to use related, but benign, viruses. For example, immunity to cowpox, a live virus from cows, cross-reacted with the more dangerous and severe smallpox virus to protect milkmaidens from getting smallpox. This is how Jenner identified and created the original smallpox vaccine. Following Jenner’s smallpox vaccine, the scientific community developed the ability to attenuate viral and bacterial strains in the laboratory, i.e. to create mutant strains that didn’t cause disease, but were similar enough to the original organism to generate a protective immune response. This is how the medical community tackled polio, measles, mumps, rubella, TB, yellow fever and influenzae. This group of vaccines are referred to as LAVs or live-attenuated vaccine strains. 

The problem with LAVs is that the organisms have the ability to mutate back to being dangerous and can cause vaccine strain outbreaks, which has happened many times with the oral polio vaccine. This is why LAVs have in general fallen out of favour. I am not aware of any LAVs being developed for coronavirus; mainly because it is an outdated technology. 

Another way of developing vaccines is to grow the organism in the laboratory and then inactivate or kill them and then to administer either the whole killed organism or a part of it as a vaccine. This is how the seasonal flu virus is currently made. The current circulating strains are cultured in chicken eggs and then the eggs are broken and processed to extract the important surface proteins to go into the vaccine. One of the Chinese vaccines that is currently been tested in COVID-19 uses the whole SARS-CoV-2 virus as an immunogen. 

The term immunogen simply refers to the component of the vaccine you want the immune system to respond to, for example, the spike or surface protein on the coronavirus. When we make vaccines that only have one or a limited number of immunogens we call this a component vaccine

Now that we have developed so recombinant protein technology we don’t have to culture live and often very dangerous organisms, but instead engineer other organisms to make the immunogen in large quantities. To do this we alter the genomes of bacteria, mammalian cells, whole animals or even plants to make the protein we want. For example, we can use E. coli bacteria, Chinese hamster ovarian cells, monkey cells or even insect cells to make proteins. The choice of the type of cell is important as many immunogens have sugar molecules on them and cells from different species add sugar molecules in different configurations and combinations. E. coli, for example, does not have the necessary molecular pathways to add sugar molecules to proteins.

A, relatively, new technology is to create genetically modified whole complex organisms that produce your protein of choice. One vaccine company has created a tobacco plant that produced the protein for the hepatitis B vaccine. You then grow the tobacco plant and extract the hepatitis B surface antigen from tobacco leaves. Another company has created a breed of goat that expresses and produces the vaccine immunogen in breast milk. All you have to do is milk these goats and extract the immunogen from their milk. 

Many of the SARS-CoV-2 component vaccines are using standard cell-based methods to produce vast quantities of the immunogen, which at present are mainly targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The recent positive Novavax coronavirus vaccine is using spike protein manufactured using insect cells. 

Component vaccines are not that immunogenic unless they are combined with an adjuvant. Adjuvants are substances that enhance the immune system’s response to the vaccine. Adjuvants are often referred to as the immunologist’s dirty little secret. The reason for this is we simply didn’t know how many of the early adjuvants worked. This is not the case anymore and the newer generation of adjuvants that are being used in component vaccines are well defined in terms of their mode of action and are safe.

Some scientists have used molecular biology to engineer other relatively benign viruses so that they make immunogens of other viruses. Instead of making the protein in the laboratory, you produce infectious viruses, that then make the protein in your body. You infect people with these engineered viruses, which are also called vectors, as part of the benign infection your own cells make the protein or immunogen that your immune system then responds to. 

Vaccinia virus used to be the most commonly used virus, but vaccinologists have moved onto adenovirus one of the viruses that cause the common cold.  The Russian sputnik COVID-19 vaccine uses a human adenovirus as the vector. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector. The problem with using these types of vaccines is that if your immune system has seen the virus in the past, i.e. from natural wild-type viral infection, your immune system reacts to and rejects the vaccine virus before it can infect enough cells to make the necessary quantity of immunogen to be effective. This is why the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus, which humans are unlikely to have been exposed to in the past. The immune response to the vector itself has implications for booster and additional vaccine using the same technology; i.e. it is likely that boosters and new vaccines using the same vector will be less effective in the future, because of immunity against the vector itself. 

Please note these viral vector vaccines are relying on the virus to infect cells and then use the cells own machinery to manufacture the immunogen. Because these vaccines are an actual infection these vaccines don’t need adjuvants. The final trick with these viral vector vaccines is to create disabled viruses, i.e. viruses that lack the ability to replicate and cause ongoing infection. This is important to prevent the viral vector itself causing an infection in the host or recipient of the vaccine. This is also the reason why the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is not referred to as a live viral vaccine. 

Finally, why waste time with viruses and simply give the viral message without the virus. This is how DNA and RNA vaccines work. You package the necessary code for the immunogen in a DNA plasmid or piece of RNA that is then transcribed into the necessary proteins to induce an immune response. 

Do RNA and DNA vaccines need adjuvant? The cell sees foreign RNA itself as being foreign as being potentially from a virus, which acts via internal danger signalling pathways to alert the immune system to the possibility of an infection. The DNA vaccines incorporate segments of DNA that fool the cell into thinking this DNA is from a bacterium, which also stimulates specific danger signalling pathways telling the immune system there is an infection. This is why RNA and DNA vaccines don’t require additional adjuvants. 

Please be aware that adenoviral vaccines, such as the Russian Sputnik and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, the DNA vaccine and the RNA vaccines don’t contain the code for manufacturing the necessary enzymes that insert DNA into the genome. The latter is unique to so-called retroviruses such as HIV. Therefore, these coronavirus vaccines don’t affect the human genome and won’t affect the germline, i.e. DNA transmitted via the eggs in the ovary of the sperm in the testes. All that these vaccines do is highjack the cells protein synthesis machinery to make SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and to tell the immune system that there is an infection. This then allows the immune system to make both B-cell or antibody and T-cell responses to coronavirus and protect that individual from being infected or becoming ill from wild-type infection. 

I want to stress that the short summary above represents centuries of research and discovery and that vaccinology is now using cutting edge molecular biology. The rapid development of the DNA, RNA and adenoviral vector vaccines have changed vaccine development for good and I anticipate these becoming the norm for future vaccines. 

I hope the above summary explains how vaccines have developed and debunks the myths about what they are and how they work. Instead of us accepting off-the-wall conspiracy theories about vaccines and what they do please join me in celebrating their success and what they offer mankind.

One of my driving ambitions is to see an EBV vaccine licensed to prevent MS. If you and the general population are not prepared to trust vaccines and the science behind their development, who is going to want their child to have an EBV vaccine to prevent MS, infectious mononucleosis and many different types of EBV-associated cancers?  

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%