Influenza Vaccine AffectivenessEssay Preview: Influenza Vaccine AffectivenessReport this essayInfluenza Vaccine EffectivenessThe flu is a contagious disease that that affects 5%-20% of Americans each year caused by influenza viruses (Anon., 2017). symptoms of the flu can be mild or severe depending on the status of infected individuals. Untreated flu can lead to complications such as pneumonia, sinus infection, and ultimately, death. Luckily, our bodies have the ability to fight against these viruses through our immune system, and it is important to get vaccinated yearly to further increase our chances against the virus.
The immune system refers to the network of cells and biological structures in our bodies that are in charge of warding off or suppressing any disease-causing agents. The defense can be adaptive or innate. Innate immunity refers to the bodyās automatic response to attack any foreign agents (antigens), this ability is present at birth (Anderson et al, 2016). Adaptive immunity developed throughout lifetime through the bodyās exposure to specific types of microbes or antigens, thus improving the hostās defense system (Anderson et al, 2016). The immune systemās initial response to an antigen is called the primary immune response, where the system encounters the antigen for the first time. Vaccines can simulate the infection with a weaker version of the antigen/pathogen, triggering the primary immune response. After the primary immune response, the body gains memory cells that will respond quicker to the same antigen/pathogen, this is referred to as the secondary immune response (Anon., 2013).
The innate immune system allows the body to attack or control pathogens. The primary immune response is activated by antigen to produce antibodies, which are responsible for the production of antibodies and their removal or excretion (Anderson et al, 2016). Anantibodies have been shown to be more readily degraded by the immune system of infected animals, which means the immune system can attack the organism from more efficient and effective methods such as vaccines (Johnson, 2009). Although the immune system will be able to remove pathogens, infections may also occur in the body that cannot be easily prevented because of the viral/inflammatory state and because infection can be so common. An infection does not require the primary immune response but may cause a specific protein or virus that is resistant to defense.
It is estimated that about 10 percent of all human mortality in the world consists of premature deaths. With the rise of vaccines, this epidemic has also increased morbidity and mortality.
A study led by Dr. Susan Sargent at the University of Alberta showed, “The number of premature deaths will rise to more than 20 million by 2025. An estimated 40 percent of all deaths associated with new vaccination strategies are caused by the new vaccination schedule, which is the least effective form of vaccination in terms of reducing the potential harms caused by new medicines (e.g., by preventing influenza, polio, cholera, or HIV).”
The researchers stated, “The introduction of vaccines in the United States from 1960 to 1988 prevented about 1/365,000 of the 2 million premature deaths in the entire American population.” The number of cases and deaths of premature people and deaths of others has declined in the 20 years since the introduction of vaccine in 1986 (Anderson et al, 2016). However, it remains significant that the rate of death from all malignant diseases increased over the 20th century. The rate of death due to cancer rose from 0.9% in 1950 to 1.9% in 2015, the earliest age of medical innovation in the 1990s and remains the single-largest cause of premature deaths (Anderson et al, 2016).
Because the vaccine cause of premature deaths declined dramatically over time due to new disease (e.g., cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease) the current pandemic has the potential to be devastating. The study of 547,924 deaths is still incomplete, but they still represent the second largest infectious disease death toll from 1990 to 2015. Because of the lack of studies, the authors estimate that the world will be suffering between 5-18 million premature deaths of people in 2030 from vaccines and the pandemic. That is less than 2 million.
The vaccine and measles virus (MMRV) vaccine are both highly effective therapies for cancer. Although an effective cancer medication, these medicines are not fully administered to the body until after cancer is metastasized or cancer growth is developed. The two vaccine medicines are of similar safety and efficacy and are commonly used by older people who are receiving multiple doses of the vaccine for years. The researchers found that the safety of the measles vaccine alone was associated with a 6% reduction in mortality from breast cancer over the 10-year period studied. They conclude “ā¦these recent findings, including our recent data, could be further supported by the use of new measles-preventable vaccines.” The study and other studies show that these vaccines reduce the mortality and/or prevent cancer in susceptible populations after they contain a small amount of the vaccine (Mantel et al, 2014). The number of people currently using vaccination for this and other malignancies declined from 8,000 to 2,500 in 2014.
The vaccine is believed to be safe and effective for most cancers and many are already treated in immunologic clinics since the introduction of the public health emergency vaccine for hepatitis V in 2000 (Duke et al, 2015).
The vaccine is currently being used by about 5% of infants and toddlers. Vaccines are
Influenza viruses are extremely versatile because of their ever-changing nature. Therefore, there is no universal vaccine to prevent the flu. There are four types of influenza virus: A, B, C and D. Influenza A and B are known to cause illness in humans during their seasonal epidemics, with type A being the most diverse with its subtypes (Anon., 2018a). In influenza B, there are two lineages instead of subtypes and current active influenza B virus belong to one of these two lineages: B/Yamagata and B/Victoria. Influenza A consists of different subtypes due to frequent changes in their gene, examples of these subtypes are: Influenza A (H3N2) and influenza A (H1N1) (Anon., 2018a). Influenza viruses change constantly either by antigenic drift or antigenic shift. Antigenic drift refers to the small changes of the virusesā gene overtime; influenza viruses experience antigenic drift constantly, and the offsprings often share the similar antigenic properties, thus any immune systems that are familiar with such properties will be able to attack it. However, these changes in the gene can accumulate over time, resulting in new subtypes of these viruses with completely different antigenic properties that our immune systems may not recognize (Anon., 2018b). Antigenic shift refers to abrupt changes that create new hemagglutinin and/or hemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins in influenza viruses; this type of change only happens occasionally. One example of antigenic shift is the influenza A (H1N1) virus that went through a āshiftā in 2009, resulting in a new version of H1N1, called the ā2009 H1N1ā, that caused a pandemic (Anon., 2018b). No vaccine or protection was available due to the unpredictable nature of the shift.
The most effective way to prevent the flu is to vaccinate. However, influenza vaccines are not always 100% effective against influenza B and influenza A H1N1 and they are way less effective against influenza A H3N2. Of course, besides factors like the virusās changing nature, the receivers age and health and the vaccine itself (Anon., 2018c). There is also another factor that affects vaccine effectiveness. It is the frequency of taking the same vaccine. One way that scientists would use to determine the vaccine effectiveness for each flu season is through antigenic distance hypothesis which is determined by the antigenic distance between the vaccine and the virus strain (Danuta et al, 2017). A study was conducted by Danuta et al in 2017 to test the ADH by looking for negative interference from the last seasonās influenza vaccine on the current seasonās vaccine. The subjects were the medically ill influenza A (H3N2) patients (cases)
and a total of 10,000 vaccinated cases (ā¼1,400 were in the vaccinated season). After 10 years of being vaccinated, the subjects had to undergo a full physical examination (Sae et al, 2007; Lee et al, 2016). The subjects that received a standard flu vaccine (ADH), were given a short time window of 3 to 30 days for the vaccine to work in their body (e.g. 7 days prior to the vaccination). In the absence of an influenza virus strain, the subjects were given daily doses of the vaccine and were monitored daily, through the usual protocolās follow-up period (18 weeks to 6 months). The current study revealed the effectiveness of adhering to the adhered protocol for the vaccination of the subjects and those that didn’t follow the adhered protocol (mean Ā± SD Ā± SD, n = 541, 4.3 Ā± 3.5). Vaccination and Safety Results The study found that flu vaccination was safe during the 2 months following the vaccination. The mean flu vaccine dose that received in 2013 was 8.1 g. (P < .01), and the overall vaccine cost ($5,923) was less than $1,000 as compared with the $1,900 vaccine cost that received in 2013 (Fig 1-3). The final rate of vaccination failure rate (0.25 vs <0.15%), which is similar to that of the vaccinated and nonvaccinated subjects, was less than 50%. Overall, the flu vaccine vaccine cost at $5,923 was substantially more than the vaccine cost in the vaccinated and nonvaccinated subjects (P < .01). Vaccination Safety This study reported vaccine safety for adults with an immune disorder in a nonvaccinated population to be similar to vaccination safety in adults with an immune disorder (Kleintgen et al., 2007), albeit in some areas different and for a longer period of time. Vaccination and Safety for Flu Flu vaccine vaccine is administered in person at 5 month intervals between birth and 2 weeks post-vaccination. Both vaccinated and nonvaccinated children take the vaccine (ADH) after the start of preāvaccination in the first 1-2 weeks post vaccination. Although the vaccine must either be given after 12ā24 weeks post-vaccination, ADH treatment was also effective after 12ā24 weeks postāvaccination. Furthermore, vaccination is highly cost effective at $25 of per dose compared to $100 per dose in the immunocompetent group. Because of the fact that flu vaccine has been used for more than 40 years, it is believed that effective daily doses of vaccination are used during the first 2 weeks post-vaccination. This is because both vaccines produce significantly lower dose of the vaccine compared with the same dose given 2-4 months later. However, there is still a considerable possibility that this is a non-response in the adhered protocols. It is important to point out that the adhered protocol was used to evaluate influenza antibody responses. Because influenza protein fragments are considered a surrogate for H1N1 and flu vaccine protein antibodies, an influenza protein fragment is needed to evaluate the vaccine effectivenessās antibody response (Cielliol et al, 2006). There was a major discrepancy in vaccine efficacy on the adhered protocols when patients were given the influenza vaccine (ADH, ADHā) after being vaccinated (Figure 2-1). A total of 11.8% of patients were vaccinated by the adhered protocol of ADH or ADHā (i.e., the total vaccine was $11,098.50) and 2% of patients were still vaccinated (Fig 2-2).
A two year exposure to the influenza vaccine was determined by an in-house study of 7,000 people in Sweden. This study included vaccinated children and teenagers over the age of age 2, which was included in total population. On average, 5 adults who had never been vaccinated for a flu case had a higher probability of a mild caseācontrol (75% compared to 48%) or severe caseācontrol (68%). The influenza vaccine for a cold case had an even higher probability of a mild caseācontrol (74% to 95%). Of the 70,000 people who had never been vaccinated for a cold case in Sweden, 1,081 had the same vaccine in the form of a placebo. This study also did not include those of parents with no prior flu vaccination (n=36). This means that these children and adolescents who have been vaccinated with the influenza vaccine on the previous season will have a lower risk of their virus being infected with influenza. We could also do a number of other research which is not discussed here. It is worth noting that with a larger population, this would mean that the influenza vaccine of more than 90 year old patients would have higher vaccine effectiveness. There is some indication that they will not be able to get vaccinated since they are still not receiving their vaccinations, and the chances for influenza vaccination are low even if they have used the vaccine at the previous seasonās influenza seasonās. On the other hand, because adolescents and adults taking the influenza vaccine are still getting the influenza vaccine, then a low vaccine effectiveness will appear soon as well. If this does happen in young adults vaccinated with the influenza vaccine, then a good vaccine idea is likely to have a large effect on the risk of infection. In the case of young adults vaccinating them and taking the influenza vaccine on the same season, it appears that this will be an effective vaccine. If a large group of elderly participants who were at the time of vaccination were vaccinated, then the young adults will have the higher vaccine efficacy, especially if the older adults have become older. If the influenza vaccine does become available, then an influenza vaccine at this level can help to prevent even more than 80% of the cases and deaths. It is worth noting that in the case of parents vaccinated with the influenza vaccine, the only way to reduce the chance of infection could be to make them inoculate themselves. This is not to say that most people are not given their influenza vaccines: their immune systems can be highly compromised and that the disease may cause infections. However, there is no evidence of immune infiltration in humans. Most people cannot use the influenza vaccine. The main risk factors for this are family history (eg, family history of non-acquired infectious disease or a family history of viral influenza) and other family factors. As discussed above, vaccines and other methods for preventing infections are not ideal for the prevention of influenza. This study also had several other potential issues which could potentially affect the effectiveness of the vaccine. First of all, it may be difficult to control for possible interactions with infected persons with the influenza vaccine. For example, the rate of influenza elimination is very low among those who are vaccinated with the influenza virus. The incidence of a mild caseācontrol or severe caseācontrol virus in the flu vaccine appears lower than in previous studies by a factor of up to five. The study did not take into account that most people who are still taking the influenza vaccine receive a small percentage of the dose of the virus, the same as those who are given it before it is taken down and not at the end of the season. This may lead to the possibility of cases that are more severe and in a very poor response to vaccination. Furthermore,
A two year exposure to the influenza vaccine was determined by an in-house study of 7,000 people in Sweden. This study included vaccinated children and teenagers over the age of age 2, which was included in total population. On average, 5 adults who had never been vaccinated for a flu case had a higher probability of a mild caseācontrol (75% compared to 48%) or severe caseācontrol (68%). The influenza vaccine for a cold case had an even higher probability of a mild caseācontrol (74% to 95%). Of the 70,000 people who had never been vaccinated for a cold case in Sweden, 1,081 had the same vaccine in the form of a placebo. This study also did not include those of parents with no prior flu vaccination (n=36). This means that these children and adolescents who have been vaccinated with the influenza vaccine on the previous season will have a lower risk of their virus being infected with influenza. We could also do a number of other research which is not discussed here. It is worth noting that with a larger population, this would mean that the influenza vaccine of more than 90 year old patients would have higher vaccine effectiveness. There is some indication that they will not be able to get vaccinated since they are still not receiving their vaccinations, and the chances for influenza vaccination are low even if they have used the vaccine at the previous seasonās influenza seasonās. On the other hand, because adolescents and adults taking the influenza vaccine are still getting the influenza vaccine, then a low vaccine effectiveness will appear soon as well. If this does happen in young adults vaccinated with the influenza vaccine, then a good vaccine idea is likely to have a large effect on the risk of infection. In the case of young adults vaccinating them and taking the influenza vaccine on the same season, it appears that this will be an effective vaccine. If a large group of elderly participants who were at the time of vaccination were vaccinated, then the young adults will have the higher vaccine efficacy, especially if the older adults have become older. If the influenza vaccine does become available, then an influenza vaccine at this level can help to prevent even more than 80% of the cases and deaths. It is worth noting that in the case of parents vaccinated with the influenza vaccine, the only way to reduce the chance of infection could be to make them inoculate themselves. This is not to say that most people are not given their influenza vaccines: their immune systems can be highly compromised and that the disease may cause infections. However, there is no evidence of immune infiltration in humans. Most people cannot use the influenza vaccine. The main risk factors for this are family history (eg, family history of non-acquired infectious disease or a family history of viral influenza) and other family factors. As discussed above, vaccines and other methods for preventing infections are not ideal for the prevention of influenza. This study also had several other potential issues which could potentially affect the effectiveness of the vaccine. First of all, it may be difficult to control for possible interactions with infected persons with the influenza vaccine. For example, the rate of influenza elimination is very low among those who are vaccinated with the influenza virus. The incidence of a mild caseācontrol or severe caseācontrol virus in the flu vaccine appears lower than in previous studies by a factor of up to five. The study did not take into account that most people who are still taking the influenza vaccine receive a small percentage of the dose of the virus, the same as those who are given it before it is taken down and not at the end of the season. This may lead to the possibility of cases that are more severe and in a very poor response to vaccination. Furthermore,