Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL
123456
Forum Home Forum Home > Main Forums > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Interesting information
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk

Interesting information

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Albert View Drop Down
Admin
Admin


Joined: April 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 47746
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Albert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Interesting information
    Posted: January 10 2008 at 7:47am
A lot of you know that we've been pushing the pneumonia vaccination for the last couple of years now.  The vax is used to prevent lethal complications from the flu, mainly for the secondary pneumonia that develops.   Unfortunately, we've really been the only site to ever do this.  
 
Anyway,  ironically enough, a study recently came out that identified the secondary pneumonia during the 1918 panflu as being primarily bacterial and not viral, and as being the main killer during the pandemic.  This means that a pneumonia vaccination (or antibiotics) could in fact keep people from dying in a panflu, and possibly even stop a panflu in its' tracks.  We all should have been pushing the issue long ago.   It appears that we were right.   
 
 
 
ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2007)  Often called the most devastating epidemic in the recorded history of the world, the 1918 influenza virus pandemic was responsible for more than 40 million deaths across the globe. The incredible lethality of the 1918 flu strain is not well understood, despite having been under intense scrutiny for many years. Now, a new study published by Cell Press in the October issue of the journal Cell Host & Microbe unravels some of the mystery surrounding the devastating 1918 pandemic and provides key information that will help prepare for future pandemics.
 

It is relatively rare for an influenza virus to be virulent enough to cause death in healthy humans. Many deaths associated with influenza are caused by the combined influence of viral disease and the following secondary bacterial infection. Although the 1918 pandemic strain was one of the few influenza viruses capable of killing healthy victims on its own, the majority of fatal cases from the "Spanish Flu" can be attributed to secondary bacterial pathogens rather than primary viral disease. This important interaction between influenza viruses and bacteria is not well understood.

Dr. Jonathan A. McCullers from the Department of Infectious Diseases at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee and colleagues examined this interaction by studying a newly discovered influenza A virus (IAV) protein, called PB1-F2. The gene encoding PB1-F2 is present in nearly all IAVs, including highly pathogenic avian IAVs that have infected humans and the IAV associated with the 1918 pandemic. "PB1-F2 was recently shown to enhance viral pathogenicity in a mouse infection model, raising questions about its effects on the secondary bacterial infections associated with high levels of influenza morbidity and mortality," explains Dr. McCullers.

The researchers found that expression of PB1-F2 increased the incidence of and exacerbated secondary bacterial pneumonia in a mouse model. Intranasal delivery of a synthetic peptide derived from a portion of PB1-F2 had the same effects. Further, an influenza virus engineered to express a version of PB1-F2 identical to that in the 1918 pandemic strain was more virulent in mice and led to more severe bacterial pneumonia, explaining in part both the unparalleled virulence of the 1918 strain and the high incidence of fatal pneumonia during the pandemic.

The finding that PB1-F2 promotes lung pathology in primary viral infection and secondary bacterial infection also provides critical information for the future. "Given the importance of IAV as a leading cause of virus-induced morbidity and mortality year in and year out, and its potential to kill tens of millions in the inevitable pandemic that may have its genesis in the viruses currently circulating in southeast Asia, it is imperative to understand the role of PB1-F2 in IAV pathogenicity in humans and animals," says Dr. McCullers. "These findings also reinforce the recent suggestion of the American Society for Microbiology that nations should stockpile antibiotics for the next pandemic, since many of the deaths during this event are likely to be caused by bacterial super-infections."

Reference: McAuley et al.: "Expression of the 1918 Influenza A Virus PB1-F2 Enhances the Pathogenesis of Viral and Secondary Bacterial Pneumonia." Publishing in Cell Host & Microbe 2, 240--249, October 2007. DOI 10.1016/j.chom.2007.09.001 

The researchers include Julie L. McAuley of Department of Infectious Diseases, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis; Felicita Hornung of Laboratory of Viral Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda; Kelli L. Boyd of Animal Resources Center, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis; Amber M. Smith of Department of Mathematics, University of Utah in Salt Lake City; Raelene McKeon of Department of Infectious Diseases, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis; Jack Bennink and Jonathan W. Yewdell of Laboratory of Viral Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda; and Jonathan A. McCullers of Department of Infectious Diseases, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis.

This work was supported by the NIH the NIAID intramural research program, and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010120543.htm

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Albert View Drop Down
Admin
Admin


Joined: April 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 47746
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Albert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 10 2008 at 4:12pm

Back in July 07, was when they first discovered that the pneumonia vaccination could reduce the mortality during a Panflu, and by up to 50%.  Now it appears to be even higher with these latest findings.  Mass Pneumococcal vaccinations could be the key to eradicating the next panflu.  We've also been saying this since 2005, and we even issued press releases about it.

From last July ...
 
Pneumococcal vaccine urged in flu pandemic plan
 
MONTREAL -- U.S. plans for an influenza virus pandemic should include a strong recommendation for bacterial pneumonia vaccination, as this measure has been shown to reduce influenza mortality by up to 50%, said Dr. Keith Klugman.

"Among the 18 fundamental points in the U.S. pandemic plan, there is little mention of bacterial vaccines. I believe their role is significant and has not been considered up until now," he said at an international conference on community-acquired pneumonia.

Although the influenza virus alone can be fatal, the risk of death is greater with secondary pneumococcal infection, said Dr. Klugman, professor of infectious diseases and the William H. Foege Chair of Global Health at Emory University, Atlanta.

"The combination of bacterial superinfection and influenza is highly fatal. It's a huge problem, and it's not a small part of influenza mortality and morbidity," he said in an interview.

Evidence that pneumococcal infection played a major role in the 1918 influenza pandemic "'is substantial, but seems to have been forgotten," Dr. Klugman recently wrote in a letter to the editor (Science 2007;316:49-50).

He cited historical evidence of culturable pneumococci in the blood of at least half of the survivors and victims of influenza in two studies (Br. Med. J. 1919; 1:3-5; JAMA 1918;71:1735).

And a randomized, controlled trial by Dr. Klugman and his colleagues has shown that, in children, vaccination against the pneumococcal bacteria results in a 31% decrease in pneumonias associated with respiratory viruses (Nat. Med. 2004; 10:811-3).

"Because of the vaccine, they are not getting the superinfection that brings them to the hospital," he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the International Society of Chemotherapy. "I think people have known for years that there can be bacterial superinfections with influenza, but they just didn't realize how common they were and how much of a role they play."

The 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPM 23) is currently recommended in adults older than 65 years, but giving the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV 7) to children is more protective against bacterial pneumonia in the adult population, he said.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that adult infections with the seven pneumococcal strains covered in the children's vaccine have decreased, while infections from the other 16 strains covered by the adult vaccine have increased.

"The burden of disease in adults has been impacted more by giving the conjugate vaccine to children than by giving the 23-valent vaccine to adults," Dr. Klugman said.

This has led some investigators to ask whether adults might benefit by being immunized using the children's conjugate vaccine. (See box, "Giving Adults the Children's Conjugate Vaccine May Backfire, Researchers Say".)

Also, a new study (Lancet 2007;369:1179-86) offers the first evidence that vaccinating children protects adults against all pneumococcal pneumonia, not just bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia, he said.

Improving pneumococcal vaccine coverage in children could result in major reductions in infection across all ages, he said.

"Only about 60% of kids currently get the full four doses of the conjugate vaccine, and it's that fourth dose that induces the full immunity and stops transmission, so we need to do a much better job of immunizing kids."

REALTED ARTICLE: Giving adults the children's conjugate vaccine may backfire, researchers say.

Is there a role for giving the children's conjugate vaccine to adults?

A recent study suggested that it may not be as simple as that (Vaccine 2007;25:4029-37). Immunogenicity among elderly patients (aged 70-79 years) who were given the children's dose of conjugate vaccine was "nothing to get overly excited about," Dr. Klugman said. "Perhaps the dose designed for a primary response in kids is not enough for adults," he suggested.

And a study presented at the 2006 International Symposium on Pneumococci and Pneumococcal Diseases by Dr. Andres de Roux, of the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, and colleagues suggested that the administration of the children's conjugate vaccine to elderly patients within 1 year of giving them the polysaccharide vaccine could actually suppress immunity.

"It seems the adult vaccine interferes with the response to the conjugate, which is a concern, because it means we can't simply give the conjugate to people who have previously had the [23-valent vaccine]. There will have to be a strategy, and it seems that certainly the conjugate needs to be given before the 23-valent," Dr. Klugman said.

Dr. Klugman said that in his opinion, a new conjugate vaccine, with coverage of more strains than the current one, will eventually replace the PPV 23 for adults.

ARTICLES BY KATE JOHNSON

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/167306371.html

Back to Top
Legacy View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar
Location: Ohio

Joined: April 20 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 329
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Legacy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 10 2008 at 7:25pm
Yep....Glad I got that shot!
I do everything my Rice Crispies tell me to....
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 10 2008 at 9:10pm
Good post Albert. Got mine last week
Back to Top
Albert View Drop Down
Admin
Admin


Joined: April 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 47746
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Albert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2008 at 7:47am

Thanks Jacksdad.  That's good to hear. 

 

There has been quite a bit of awareness regarding getting the pneumonia vax along with the regular flu shot over the last year or two, and I would like to think that everybody here at AFT had something to do with that.  In a ripple sort of effect, I believe AFT could be partially responsible for the current ppv23 awareness.  To this date, no sites still mention it at all, and we've been talking about it here for 2 years.   Thumbs Up

 

 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2008 at 7:46pm
Rock on A!!!!Hug
Back to Top
Albert View Drop Down
Admin
Admin


Joined: April 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 47746
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Albert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2008 at 6:59pm
Thanks WalkinRon.   At least we know there is something that can be done to fight a panflu.   
 
 
Back to Top
MelodyAtHome View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: May 16 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2018
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MelodyAtHome Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2008 at 11:34pm
I can't remember when I got my pneumonia shot last. I'll have to ask my doctor when I see her in March. I think it is every 5 years but I thought that was for 65 and over? What is the recommendation on that? Thanks.
Melody
Emergency Preparedness 911
http://emergencypreparedness911.blogspot.com/
Back to Top
ReadyOrNot View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member


Joined: January 09 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ReadyOrNot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 13 2008 at 5:09pm
Corpus Christi, Texas, Petsmart Officials say the birds are being treated for a disease called psittacosis...In December the disease forced Petsmark to pull all of its birds in 46 states, but Texas was not one of those states. Officials say the other states were under a different vendor and that this case, is not related to the others.

What do you think this means ... not related to the other ???
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down