High Dose Flu Vaccine Available for the Elderly

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7555#more-7555

" A recent review by Goodwin et al. showed that the antibody response to flu vaccines is significantly lower in the elderly. They called for a more immunogenic vaccine formulation for that age group. My age group.

One manufacturer has responded. Fluzone High-Dose vaccine contains 60 mcg of hemagglutinin antigen from each strain, compared to 15 mcg in the standard dose vaccine. This high-dose preparation has been tested in three clinical studies (here, here, and here) of 4453 healthy people aged 65 years and older. In each of these studies the high-dose vaccine produced significantly higher antibody levels than the standard dose vaccine. There was a dose-related increase in minor local side effects (arm pain, redness and swelling at the injection site) but no increase in serious adverse effects. Most recipients had minimal or no adverse effects. We don’t yet have data to prove that the increase in antibody titers will result in fewer clinical influenza illnesses and complications, but it seems logical that it would. A study comparing the effectiveness of Fluzone High-Dose to Fluzone is expected to be completed in 2012. The high-dose vaccine is more expensive, but Medicare pays for it.

The Medical Letter recently covered the 2010-2011 flu vaccines and did not recommend (or advise against) the high-dose formulation for older patients, because the clinical efficacy data are not yet available. Neither the CDC nor the ACIP has been willing to express a preference for one vaccine over another at this time. I asked our own infectious disease expert, Dr. Crislip, and he recommends the high-dose in view of its improved immunogenicity and biological plausibility.

I’m 65 and my husband is older: we opted for the high-dose vaccine. Not everyone will agree, but shouldn’t older patients be given the facts and the option?"


------------------------------------------


I'd answer yes.

:hi:

[wuvuj]

1. Reduce flu occurance by 2/3s?

N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) is a specially modified form of the dietary amino acid cysteine.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 262 seniors, regular use of NAC at dose of 600 mg twice daily helped prevent the development of influenza-like illnesses.62 Over the 6-month study period, only 25% of participants taking NAC developed flu-like symptoms, as compared to 79% in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference.

Interestingly, blood tests suggested that NAC did not prevent influenza infection—about as many people showed antibodies indicating influenza infection in the NAC group as in the placebo group. Rather, the supplement seemed to reduce the rate at which influenza infection became severe enough to cause noticeable symptoms. Tests of immune function hinted that NAC functioned by increasing the strength of the immune response.

[wuvuj]

2. The OTHER point of view?

http://www.naturalnews.com/030164_flu_vaccines_senior_citizens.html

Pay attention to what they're NOT telling you about the flu: Doctors, FDA officials and CDC quacks will never admit that the best way to prevent the flu is to take vitamin D3 supplements. It has been scientifically shown to be many times more effective than a vaccine shot....

...........

So NAC *AND* good Vit D levels
"might" protect you from many different kinds of infections?

But the FDA may raid your house if you do...with drawn guns..."give us your Vit D and NAC...or else!" :crazy:

More likely they will pass legislation to take away your right to buy these vitamins OTC...and make you get a prescription and pay much more...we MUST protect BigPharma=FDA...their profits and the American way of life depend on it. :patriot: God Bless America! :patriot:

[HuckleB]

3. Fiction is not a point of view.

Your claim is ludicrous, as is the quack site you reference.

Flu Woo Hodge Podge
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=484

Flu Vaccine Efficacy
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040

Too deliciously ironic for words: Gary Null hoist with his own petard
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/04/too_deliciously_ironic_for_words_gary_nu.php

If you actually bother to read those, you'll note that people who actually care about science do not simply poo poo Vitamin D, but they're not going to buy into the type of BS extrapolation you're offering.

This piece clarifies that a bit:

Vitamin D
http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/2010/08/18/vitamin-d/

[HuckleB]

4. Links to some studies on the high dose vaccine.

High Dose Of Flu Vaccine Boosts Immune Response In Elderly
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081026150153.htm

Safety of high doses of influenza vaccine and effect on antibody responses in elderly persons.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16717175

Randomized, double-blind controlled phase 3 trial comparing the immunogenicity of high-dose and standard-dose influenza vaccine in adults 65 years of age and older.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19508159

Safety and immunogenicity of a high dosage trivalent influenza vaccine among elderly subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17913310

[wuvuj]

5. I'll place my bets....

...on boosting my overall immune system...rather than targeting a few varieties of flu viruses. A no brainer.

What anyone else does is entirely up to them and the drug police. Live and let die? :woohoo:

Remember...I'm not here to argue..takes too much time and is of little benefit.

You makes yer bets...and you takes yer chances.

[HuckleB]

6. You're supposedly not here to argue?

:rofl:

I suppose that's why you post quackery (twice over a week or two) in response to a simple informational post about a vaccine that has been shown to be safe and effective.

Sorry, no sale on any of what you're selling, nor on the classic woo switcheroo in regard your claim about not being here to argue.

BTW, I don't make bets. I look at the research and make an informed decision.

[wuvuj]

8. I post info on a take it or leave it basis....

...meaning that I don't give too much of a good crap whether anyone uses the info...it's just that I would appreciate if someone with similar types and kinds of "knowledge" would post this type of info...so I post stuff.

I posted it in response to your post on the same subject...cause it made sense to do so...EXCEPT for the argument that ensues.

Simple truth is that I can find and have found equal or better sources elsewhere without the need to argue about it...so I should probably think about it and maybe leave this forum to the industry apologists.

I ALSO look at the research and make an informed decision.

I think the HealthRanger goes a little overboard on the vaccine thing...though I'm sure there IS a profit motive. I've never had a flu shot nor would I take a statin.

Anyone making any kind of health decision should probably defer to the health professionals.....unless they think they know better.

Like most professionals in the US...they have been trained to "industry standards"...so in the case of health care...you get what comes out of medical schools and BigPharma...etc.

[HuckleB]

9. You're posting misinformation.

And by saying that, I am being kind.

You're simply repeating the misinformation pushed by misinformed conspiracy theorists. Your cliches about Big Pharma etc... are anything but informative. They merely show that your preconceived notions run your beliefs, and that you DON'T look at the research and make an informed decision.

Your claims don't match your actions.

[wuvuj]

20. I think the opposite is true...

...and your actions prove your intentions....but I'm not willing to waste my time attempting to prove it. I've learned some things on these forums and have contributed some in return...but now I believe it is time for me to grow up and move on...because it is easier to talk than it is to make real substantive changes in one's life.

[HuckleB]

21. The evidence doesn't support your belief.

That's why you won't waste your time offering anything but inane generalities.

[xchrom]

7. that is awesome news. nt

[HuckleB]

10. Hmmmmmm: Why anti-vaccine groups are in bed with Big Pharma

http://blog.epiren.com/2010/10/why-anti-vaccine-groups-are-in-bed-with.html

:evilgrin: :smoke: O8) B-) :hi: :popcorn:

[LaurenG]

11. I actually ordered this last year for this season

So far we have given about 200 doses. It is proving to be an awesome vaccine I hope it continues to prove that it works. So far the trial's are showing good results, good enough that Medicare covers it. IIRC the trials should be done sometime next year or 2012.

[HuckleB]

12. Thanks for sharing!

Do you run a clinic or pharmacy?

I just called in a prescription for my mom, and the message on the pharmacy line mentioned that they had the high dose vaccine for seniors available. It was the first I heard anything of it, outside of the press and the studies.

[LaurenG]

19. It's only being offered through one company, so that is probably why you haven't heard of it.

and yes I am in the medical field.

[Celebration]

13. evidence based medicine?

Why would Medicare pay for a higher priced alternative that has not been proven to be superior? I thought people here liked evidence based medicine.

But, as far as I am concerned, other than the question of Medicare paying for it, it is fine with me if people want to shoot up with a higher dose of vaccine, even if there is a big chance that it actually gives them the flu. Yes, everyone should be given the information, and have the option to choose no vaccine, a small dose vaccine, or an unproven high dose vaccine. That suits me fine.

[HuckleB]

14. Way to ignore post 4.

"Shoot up."

:rofl:

Oh, and calling it unproven is a statement that is, well, unproven.

[Celebration]

15. way to ignore this

"The Medical Letter recently covered the 2010-2011 flu vaccines and did not recommend (or advise against) the high-dose formulation for older patients, because the clinical efficacy data are not yet available. Neither the CDC nor the ACIP has been willing to express a preference for one vaccine over another at this time. I asked our own infectious disease expert, Dr. Crislip, and he recommends the high-dose in view of its improved immunogenicity and biological plausibility."

from the OP

:rofl:

Are you saying that the CDC and ACIP does not follow evidence based medicine?

You might be talking about apples and oranges, since the flu vaccines are different every year.

I am not arguing against people having this option, but if the CDC doesn't sign off on the efficacy, I would not want Medicare covering the higher cost.

[HuckleB]

16. Yes, that's in the OP.

It doesn't erase the research that has been done. Further, not showing preference does not mean the evidence doesn't exist, nor does it mean that the vaccine does not have efficacy.

Why would you assume that?

WOW!

And, yes... your preconceived notions are showing.

:rofl:

[Celebration]

17. of course it does not mean

that the vaccine does not have efficacy.

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T!!

Before Medicare pays for the higher amount, though, the burden of proof should be a higher than that, as in the CDC endorsing it, which it has not. The studies you cited were not for current vaccines, and therefore not applicable.

But as far as I am concerned, an elderly person should be able to have four vaccines at once if he/she is of sound mind and chooses to do it. Just pay for it.

[HuckleB]

18. That's quite the spin.

The studies show that vaccines with the dosing in this vaccine are efficacious and safe.

Try again.