This news release describes the results of a published study that examined how well a new shingles vaccine, Shingrix, provoked immune responses during clinical trials led by researchers in Australia. The news release does a good job of describing why Shingrix offers stronger protection compared with other vaccines. However, it isn’t clear what this new information means for patients. The news release doesn’t address costs, harms, and the fact that the study was conducted by employees of GlaxoSmithKline and others holding a financial stake in the vaccine.
Almost one-in-three people in the U.S. will develop shingles, which is caused by the herpes zoster virus, according to the CDC. Incidence increases with age as the immune system declines, so vaccines are generally recommended for people over the age of 50.
Shingrix, which was approved in October 2017, contains an adjuvant, a substance that boosts the immune system’s response, and that appears to make it more effective and longer lasting than an older vaccine, Zostavax. It would have been helpful if the release would had informed readers how well the established vaccine works in comparison.
No cost information is provided. According to GoodRx, Shingrix costs about $300 out-of-pocket for a course of two injections.
The primary benefit being reported here is that “90% of recipients had an increased immune response sustained across the 3-year duration of the study.” It would have been more helpful if the release had noted the actual incidence of shingles in those vaccinated with the new vaccine versus the old (or no vaccine).
The news release says the study “shows that the vaccine stimulates your immune system to produce more antibodies and it generates a 24-fold increase in T cells. This is 12 times higher than other less effective shingles vaccines.” T cells are white blood cells that kill infected cells.
We did have some concerns with a statement in the release projecting how long the vaccine protects against shingles. The release quotes a researcher saying, “We anticipate that this protection will actually last much, much longer. We are now measuring the efficacy of the vaccine over the next 10 years and are very optimistic about the results.” However, it doesn’t say when and if that will translate into a benefit for patients.
There’s no information on harms. Most people had pain around the injection site, and a variety of other symptoms such as muscle plain, headache and nausea were reported during clinical trials.
The news release states that data encompasses more than 15,000 people in 18 countries who received two doses of the vaccine, with the doses given two months apart.
There’s no disease mongering. The news release states that most “Australian adults have been infected with the herpes zoster virus and are at risk of shingles, even if they do not remember having chicken pox. By age 85, approximately 50% of the population will develop shingles. Vaccination is the only way to protect against shingles.”
The study was funded by the manufacturer of Shingrix, GlaxoSmithKline, and many of the authors are listed in the study as being GSK employees or having other financial interests in shingles vaccines. None of that is mentioned.
The news release states:
Shingrix is different from most other vaccines. Many vaccines are made from a weakened form of the virus, but Shingrix is made from just a single protein–known as glycoprotein E–that comes from the outer shell of the herpes zoster virus.
As noted above, it would have been helpful if the release had stated how the established vaccine compared in the rate of effectiveness.
There’s no mention of whether Shingrix is widely available. It is, including in the US where it received FDA approval in October 2017.
It states:
The vaccine also contains an adjuvant–a substance that helps your body fight off the virus. It is the first shingles vaccine to combine a non-live antigen with a specifically designed adjuvant.
However, there are non-shingles vaccines that use this approach in vaccines recommended for older adults. According to a report in the American Osteopathic Association:
Strategies that may improve vaccine effectiveness in older individuals include using higher doses, adding extra boosters, changing the route of vaccination, or combining vaccine antigens with adjuvants (adjuvanted vaccines) or a more immunogenic protein (conjugated vaccine). Adjuvanted and conjugated vaccines, as well as altering the vaccine dose, have all been applied to 3 vaccines currently recommended for older adults: influenza virus, Streptococcus pneumonia, and VZV vaccines.
There’s no unjustifiable language.
However, the news release would have been stronger if it had given data to back up this statement:
“This is quite remarkable because there are no other vaccines that perform nearly so well for people in their 70s and their 80s. We are seeing results comparable to those of childhood vaccinations.”
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
More for milk debates: "Switching to skim #milk may slow biological aging" https://upi.com/6975065t via @upi cc @garyschwitzer @joansalgeblake
"We can't say that this was caused by milk fat." As is often the case with nutrition studies: correlation ≠ causation.
#RelaxDammit
@HealthNewsRevu @mcjaklevic HealthNewsReview once again revealing hype that far outstrips reality. I suspect that one day, AI will meaningfully contribute to good patient care. Whether that's in 10 years or 100, I couldn't say. What is clear is that we ain't there yet.
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
chas beach
March 8, 2018 at 10:19 amExcellent follow-up. There are always questions when new drugs are introduced. Would appreciate hearing more about RA, strepp and cancer interactions and effectiveness timeframe.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like