Why does fingolimod affect antibody responses?

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer:  ★

The Twittersphere is abuzz with the preliminary seroconversion rates in Israelis patients with MS on various DMTs in response to the Pfizer-BionTech COVID-19 vaccine (see below). As expected the antibody seroconversion rates in response to anti-CD20 therapies and S1P modulators are blunted and in most cases inhibited. The backstory or biology around anti-CD20 therapy is well-rehearsed; anti-CD20 therapy depletes B-cells and annihilates germinal centres in lymph nodes and the spleen.

The question I have just been asked is why does fingolimod block antibody responses? To answer this we need to go back to the basics of immunology. 

Fingolimod and other S1P modulators work by internalising the S1P receptor making lymphocytes unresponsive to the S1P signalling or chemotaxis gradient in secondary lymph organs such as lymph nodes. In lay language, this causes lymphocytes to park-up in a long-term car park with a wheel lock-on. Even if you wanted to drive your car out of the car park by starting it up you wouldn’t be able to move it without removing the wheel-lock (fingolimod). By blocking lymphocyte mobility helper T-cells can’t migrate to the so-called germinal centres in the lymph nodes and spleen to help B-cells switch from IgM to IgG antibody production and to then help the B-cells to affinity mature their antibodies, i.e. to make good quality antibodies. Normally these affinity matured B-cells would leave the germinal centre to become memory B-cells or plasmablasts. The plasmablasts then mature to become plasma cells and produce high-quality antibodies, which in the case of anti-spike protein protect you from getting COVID-19 in particular severe COVID-19. Fingolimod and other S1P modulators prevent this normal immunology from happening hence the low or absent anti-COVID-19 antibody response after COVID-19 vaccination.

I like to think of the germinal centres as being the immune system’s university; this is where the immune system sends its primed T-cells to help educate B-cells. After a brutal natural selection process in the germinal centres, a few B-cells survive and graduate with a PhD, i.e. a highly specialised degree or class-switched high-affinity IgG antibodies. This then allows the B-cells to become memory B cells and go into semi-retirement or to set-up their own production company as plasma cells and to produce high-quality antibodies. Anti-CD20 therapies work by blowing up the B-cell university and S1P modulators stop the teachers (T-cells) from educating their students (B-cells). Having no university or no teacher-student interactions have the same effect and result in no educated B-cells and hence no IgG antibody responses.

Please note the above information does not change my personal advice regarding vaccination, whether you are on an anti-CD20 therapy, fingolimod or another S1P modulator (siponimod, ozanimod, ponesimod) #GetVaccinated ASAP; some immunity is better than no immunity. Please note having no anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies doesn’t necessarily mean you have no immunity. These antibody studies don’t tell us anything about T-cell responses, which are likely to be as important as antibodies in providing protecttive immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

Han et al. FTY720 suppresses humoral immunity by inhibiting germinal center reaction. Blood. 2004 Dec 15;104(13):4129-33. doi: 10.1182/blood-2004-06-2075. Epub 2004 Aug 19.

FTY720 is a novel immunosuppressant that is highly effective in inhibiting rejection of allografts and autoimmunity in various animal models. It has been shown that the sphingosine 1 phosphate (S1P) receptors are the direct molecular targets of FTY720. However, the mechanisms responsible for inhibiting specific immune responses by FTY720 are not well resolved. In particular, there is no available information on whether or how this compound affects humoral immunity. We have investigated the effect of FTY720 treatment on B-cell response during the immune response to a well-defined T-dependent antigen. Our data demonstrated that germinal center reaction was significantly reduced in peripheral lymphoid tissues of mice treated with FTY720. In addition, FTY720 treatment inhibited the production of high-affinity, class-switched antibodies, but not the production of low-affinity, immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody. Consistently, FTY720 did not have a significant effect on antibody response to a T-independent antigen. Our results may have important implications in application of FTY720 in immune regulation.

Also see the post by MD from a few days ago. Fingolimod also stops B cells moving within the follciles and and stops them contacting areas where they the B cells are likely to be stimulated.

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.

#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

#MSCOVID19: cladribine is being unfairly tarnished with alemtuzumab’s brush

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★★★★

I think the North American MS community have made some mistakes with their COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, in particular, the NMSS COVID-19 vaccine guidelines for cladribine. In view of the immunology of cladribine’s mode of action and new data that is emerging, I would suggest the NMSS considers updating its guidelines. 

Lemtrada and Mavenclad

If you are about to start Lemtrada or Mavenclad, consider getting the Pfizer BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine so that the second vaccine injection is done 4 weeks or more prior to starting Lemtrada or Mavenclad. If you are already taking Lemtrada or Mavenclad, consider administering the vaccine injections starting 12 weeks or more after the last Lemtrada or Mavenclad dose, with the optimal timing of the vaccine 24 weeks or more after the last DMT dose2. When possible, resume Lemtrada or Mavenclad 4 weeks or more following the second vaccine injection. This suggested scheduling is not always possible and getting the vaccine when it becomes available to you may be more important than timing the vaccine with your DMT. Work with your MS healthcare provider to determine the best schedule for you.

Lumping cladribine and alemtuzumab together as being immune-depleters of the same ilk is simply wrong. Alemtuzumab is more of a sledgehammer and is relatively non-selective in depleting both T-cells and B-cells and it also hits innate immunity, in particular monocytes. This is why there is a major infection signal (e.g. listeriosis) with alemtuzumab in the 4-6 weeks after each course of treatment. The latter does not occur with the doses of cladribine we use to treat people with MS.

In comparison, the mode of action of cladribine is very subtle and more in keeping with a selective B-cell depleting agent. Cladribine depletes B-cells by about 85-90% and hits mainly memory B-cells, in other words, large numbers of naive B-cell persist in the peripheral blood. We think as memory B-cells are being killed fresh naive B-cells are being released from the bone marrow. This is important because it is the naive B-cell population that is required to make new antibody responses to vaccines. 

Cladribine only depletes T-cells by about 50% a level that in general is not sufficient to put patients at risk of opportunistic infections or even viral infections. When we recently reanalysed all of the cladribine safety data there was no novel or new exogenous (from outside the body) viral infection signal. The only viral infection signal we saw was zoster or shingles, i.e. a reactivation of a latent virus, which is common and occurs with all immunosuppressive therapies. 

Another very big difference between cladribine and alemtuzumab is the fact that cladribine leaves the innate immune system intact, which is important for fighting infections and for processing vaccine antigens and presenting them to the immune system. 

Another factor that is different is the temporal profile of immunodepletion that occurs with alemtuzumab and cladribine. Alemtuzumab causes rapid cell lysis with its effect noticeable in hours to days; in other words, peripheral blood lymphocyte and monocyte counts are depleted to very low levels (nadir) very quickly. In comparison, cladribine works by triggering apoptosis of cells and lymphocytes die slowly over weeks to months reaching a nadir at about 3 to 4 months after each course. Therefore for the NMSS guidance to say “consider administering the vaccine injections starting 12 weeks or more after the last Mavenclad dose, with the optimal timing of the vaccine 24 weeks or more after the last DMT dose” is actually recommending giving the vaccine from the start of the nadir. 

Unlike alemtuzumab, I think the timing of vaccination in patients treated with cladribine is unlikely to make much of a difference because both the afferent (antigen processing and presentation) and efferent (B-cells/antibodies and T-cells) limbs of the immune system is intact, i.e. there is enough hardware or cells at all times post cladribine to make an immune response. Saying this the summary of product characteristics of cladribine clearly states that live vaccines should be avoided until the immune system has reconstituted and the cells counts have returned to normal. Please note this refers to live vaccines and doesn’t apply to the currently licensed COVID-19 vaccines, which are not live attenuated vaccines or LAVs.

The good news is that the above predictions are being borne out by some real-life flu and VZV vaccine data in cladribine-treated patients that have been presented at ACTRIMS this week. My interpretation of this data is that regardless of when a vaccine is administered in patients on cladribine the appear to mount a good antibody response. I agree the number of subjects studied is small and no subject has had grade 4 lymphopaenia (<200/mm3), but these data at least confirm what you would expect to happen based on immunological principles. 

My advice, therefore, remains the same for pwMS on DMTs; during the height of the pandemic having some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is better than having no immunity. This is why you should get vaccinated ASAP. If you live in an environment where the background risk of COVID-19 is low then you may want to optimise the timing of your vaccine, when you are next dosed with an immunodepleting therapy or when you start or switch therapies.


Roy & Boschert. Analysis of Influenza and Varicella-Zoster Virus Vaccine Antibody Titers in Patients with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Treated with Cladribine Tablets. P059 – ACTRIMS 2021

Background: There is a lack of data available to determine the effect of cladribine tablets (CladT) on the antibody response to vaccination in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS).

Objectives: To investigate the immunoprotective response to seasonal influenza and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) vaccination in patients treated with CladT (3.5mg/kg over 2 years) for relapsing MS.

Methods: Blood samples collected during the MAGNIFY-MS study (NCT03364036) from 9 patients with relapsing MS treated with CladT who received seasonal influenza (n=8) or VZV vaccinations (n=1; Shingrix) as a standard of care were retrospectively analyzed. Two control blood samples (baseline sample before starting CladT and closest sample available just before vaccination) and two post-vaccination blood samples (closest sample available after vaccination) were examined. Quantitative antibody titers in response to the seasonal influenza and VZV vaccine were measured by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), respectively. The seroprotection titer level for the seasonal influenza vaccine is considered ≥40, and was ≥100 IU/L for the VZV vaccine.

Results: Influenza: All patients vaccinated against influenza A and B during year 1 or 2 of CladT treatment retained seroprotection titers of ≥40 in post-vaccination samples across all strains present in the vaccine administered. The number of seropositive patients (HAI ≥40) with a ≥4-fold and ≥2-fold increase against at least 1 strain in post-vaccination titers were 3/8 and 7/8, respectively. VZV: Post-vaccination antibody titers were 40-fold increased over the protective titer at all time points (titers >4748 IU/L).

Conclusions: In this small retrospective investigation, post-vaccination antibody titers in patients treated with CladT for relapsing MS remained at levels that offer protective immunity against seasonal influenza and VZV.

Wu et al.  Evaluating the Impact of Cladribine Tablets on the Development of Antibody Titers: Interim Results from The CLOCK-MS Influenza Vaccine Substudy. P071 ACTRIMS 2021

Background: Cladribine tablets have been approved in more than 80 countries for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS), and are hypothesized to function as an immune reconstitution therapy with potential to cross the blood-brain barrier. The CLOCK-MS study (cladribine tablets: collaborative study to evaluate impact on central nervous system biomarkers in multiple sclerosis), is a 24-month, open-label, randomized, multicenter, collaborative Phase IV biomarker research study. The COVID-19 pandemic, and pending vaccine availability, have raised important questions around the impact of MS disease modifying therapies on vaccine efficacy.

Objectives: To evaluate the potential impact of prior treatment with cladribine tablets on the development of antibody titres post-influenza vaccination via a sub-study of CLOCK-MS.

Methods: The CLOCK-MS main study will enroll approximately 50 subjects age 18-65, diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS or active secondary progressive MS, who had inadequate response to, or were unable to tolerate, an alternate drug indicated for the treatment of RMS. Study participants who have taken at least one dose of cladribine tablets and are planning to obtain one standard-of-care influenza vaccine are eligible to take part in the sub-study if they consent to blood draws. Blood sampling will occur 1) 3 Weeks Pre-Vaccine (within 21 days prior to obtaining a standard of care vaccine), 2) 4 Weeks Post-Vaccine (+/- 7 days), and 3) 6 Months Post-Vaccine (+/- 7 days). Measurements of antibody responses will be performed.

Results: So far 5 patients have been enrolled in this sub-study and had initial titers drawn. All patients fulfilled the per-label requirements for vaccination after cladribine tablets treatment. Initial results at Week 4 post-vaccination will be presented.

Conclusions: The impact of cladribine tablets, a lymphocyte-lowering agent, on the immune system’s ability to develop antibodies in response to a vaccine has not yet been studied. These results are expected to provide preliminary observations around the impact of cladribine tablets on influenza vaccine efficacy in patients with RMS.

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

#MSCOVID19: vaccine decision aid

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★★★★

Due to the number of emails and/or messages about the COVID-19 vaccines and MS I have been receiving I have put together a rough-and-ready decision aid to deal with the most common questions that have arisen so far.

Please note this is a beta version using Google Slide’s technology. As questions come in I will update the decision aid. If you think it is worthwhile we may be able to convert the decision aid into one of our ClinicSpeak web apps.

Your feedback on the design and format of the decision aid would be much appreciated. Thanks.

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

We need you!

Barts-MS rose-tinted-odometer: ★★

Did you know that as of September 2020, only 54.1% of the public in the UK and 42.5% in the USA would ‘definitely’ accept a COVID-19 vaccine to protect themselves? 

I sincerely hope these figures are wrong and have changed substantially since September 2020. Why? These vaccine acceptance rates are lower than the proportion of vaccinated people required to achieve the anticipated herd immunity levels for SARS-CoV-2. Interestingly, in the study that produced these disturbing figures (see below), a higher proportion of individuals in both the UK and the USA would ‘definitely’ vaccinate to protect family, friends and at-risk groups, suggesting that effective altruistic messaging may be required to boost vaccine uptake. This is why I have always taken the line that vaccination is not necessarily about you, but society and in the case of COVID-19 vulnerable people. 

It is clear that misinformation/disinformation campaigns on social media have a remarkable effect on individual behaviour and lead to vaccine hesitancy. It is clear from recent political events across the globe that we need to move beyond the ‘post-truth era’ and reclaim the moral high ground and to start trusting our experts again. We have put in place institutions, such as our drug regulatory agencies, to protect the public. The fact that they have the necessary ‘deep expertise’ and have vetted and licensed several COVID-19 vaccines makes them safe to use at a population level. So my message is simple if you are offered a chance to be vaccinated with one of the COVID-19 vaccines take up the offer ASAP. The vaccine will not only protect you but your fellow citizens as well. In fact, you will be saving lives.  

The more unvaccinated people there are. particularly unvaccinated immunosuppressed individuals, the more opportunity the virus has to mutate and develop immune escape variants, i.e. new virus strains that are resistant to immunity from the current vaccines. These new strains will extend the pandemic, killed more people and make the economic impact of the pandemic worse. Based on this alone several commentators make the point that we all have a duty to be vaccinated.

What this study also shows that there is more to simply fighting the virus to end this pandemic; we have a propaganda war on our hands fighting both misinformation and disinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations. I think we all have a responsibility to join this battle. Everyone needs to say something like  ‘I am a vaccinee and proud of it’ or ‘I have done my duty and have had the vaccine’. I am not a marketeer or advertising creative, but if you could come up with some catchy slogans we could then all push them out on social media and start a campaign. What do you think? 

Loomba et al. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour (2021); published: 05 February 2021.

The widespread acceptance of a vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be the next major step in fighting the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but achieving high uptake will be a challenge and maybe impeded by online misinformation. To inform successful vaccination campaigns, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in the UK and the USA to quantify how exposure to online misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines affects the intent to vaccinate to protect oneself or others. Here we show that in both countries—as of September 2020—fewer people would ‘definitely’ take a vaccine than is likely required for herd immunity, and that, relative to factual information, recent misinformation induced a decline in the intent of 6.2 percentage points (95th percentile interval 3.9 to 8.5) in the UK and 6.4 percentage points (95th percentile interval 4.0 to 8.8) in the USA among those who stated that they would definitely accept a vaccine. We also find that some sociodemographic groups are differentially impacted by exposure to misinformation. Finally, we show that scientific-sounding misinformation is more strongly associated with declines in vaccination intent.

CoI: multiple

Twitter: @gavinGiovannoni                                              Medium: @gavin_24211

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%